IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.

HC Deb 23 July 1908 vol 193 cc368-479

As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.

CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.) moved to omit Clause 1, in order, he said, to elicit from the Chief Secretary a statement as to whether he was fully aware of the great change which he was making in higher education in Ireland. Clause 1 was the clause which started off the two new Universities which he proposed to establish, but he would ask the House to say whether, even at that late hour, they would not take the course of omitting the clause and thus throwing out this very obnoxious scheme. When the Bill was introduced they were told that it was to be purely undenominational, and the two new Universities which it was proposed to set up, they were told, solved the mystery of undenominational teaching in the Universities in Ireland. In the course of the debates in Committee, and as anyone could judge in reading the Bill, they found that the scheme of the Chief Secretary was entirely denominational from beginning to end, and that the whole aspect of the question had been changed. Clause 1 destroyed the old Royal University of Ireland and changed the aspect of Queen's College, Belfast. There had been no desire whatever expressed by those chiefly interested in higher education in the North of Irleand for this change in the status of Queen's College, Belfast. Everybody in Ireland who had taken an interest in higher education amongst the Protestants of the country had denounced the scheme. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland met immediately the Bill was proposed and passed a strong resolution condemning the system proposed to be set up. The next move was on behalf of the various educational associations, and they too condemned the scheme on the ground that it was purely denominational. The whole of the governing body of Orangemen in Ireland, which covered all the denominations of Protestants, condemned the scheme also, and they who represented the Ulster constituencies, he believed, had never received one single letter or memorial in favour of the Bill; anyhow, he had not, and he believed none of his friends on that side of the House had received a scratch of the pen from a soul in Ireland in approbation of the Bill. In Committee, they found that the Bill had been submitted to no Protestant body in Ireland for consideration, but in every instance to the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It was proposed by Clause 1 to take away the undenominational system of the Royal University of Ireland and to set up in its place Universities segregated into two camps—Protestants in the north and Roman Catholics in the south. How, under those circumstances, could they ever hope to bring the people together, which they were all anxious to do? The Bill ruined that idea and went back centuries in the system of training the youth of the country. The Chief Secretary had admitted that he hoped the large University to be set up in Dublin, and its affiliated colleges, would draw the youth of the country to them. He and his colleagues had no objection to the youth of the country being educated; why should they throw cold water on a scheme which was to teach the people of Ireland? But what they objected to so much was that under the scheme of the Chief Secretary, and the wily way in which it had been brought forward, there were three separate bodies. For two years a body of Commissioners was set up to carry out the scheme, and after those Commissioners had done their work another body was brought forward for five years, and then, when they had done their work, the crucial question arose as to who were to be the permanent governing bodies of these Universities. No one could deny that the governing bodies of the Universities, when it came to the third stage of the drama, would be on the one hand he Roman Catholic clergy in the south, and on the other hand the Presbyterian clergy in the north. Of that there could be no doubt, and he did not think anyone now ventured to deny it. Was that the class of education they were anxious to have in Ireland? It was going back one hundred years to destroy the Royal University, which threw its cloak over all classes of the community, Protestants and Catholics alike, which allowed extern students, and which allowed people to come and take degrees without fear or favour. Then there were the colleges of Cork, Galway, and Belfast, eve-y one of which had, so far as he knew, met with general approbation. Clause 1 destroyed them; it changed their aspect and at extraordinary cost. He believed £2,700,000 was to be voted by Parliament for the erection in Dublin of a Roman Catholic University, and for giving a certain amount of money to Belfast. The idea of a University for Belfast never would have been heard of had it not been that the Government thought if they catered openly and only for the Roman Catholics in Dublin, the Bill would not get through Parliament. The Chief Secretary had said that they who lived in the North of Ireland ought to be-glad to see the Queen's College raised to the status of a University, and receive a little more money. But if Belfast was left alone it was doing good work. They had repeatedly asked for more money in order to be able to do better work, but they could not get it from any Government. A mere handful of gentlemen within the College, an unrepresentative body in the truest sense of the word,, were in favour of raising the status of the College, but no one else, and in spite of the fact that there had been no desire whatever amongst Protestants in the North of Ireland to have this, it had been thrust upon them. If they cut the Bill in two, and left Belfast on one side altogether, the Chief Secretary could not get his Roman Catholic University for Dublin. It was only the fact that this piece of treachery was tacked on to the Belfast end of it that enabled the right hon. Gentleman to get the Bill through when the majority of his supporters were Nonconformists. On the First and Second Reading of the Bill the people did not understand it. With the greatest haste it was smuggled upstairs to Committee, and now they were allowed two days and a bit of Saturday to discuss the whole organisation of higher education in Ireland. They were told that it was a Bill which would satisfy the people of Ireland. It would satisfy the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland. But did anyone imagine for a moment that if the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland held up its finger and said, "We will not have it," the Bill would go through, or that when the Bill did go through, if the Roman Catholic hierarchy, as they had done in regard to the Queen's College, held up their finger, they could not compel every Roman Catholic in the country to stay outside the walls of the University? It depended on that alone. They must give them a University, but whether it would ever be of the slightest use or not to the country depended not on the right hon. Gentleman or his successors in office, but entirely on the attitude adopted by the archbishops and the bishops in Dublin. He would like to see higher education in Ireland carried to the very best pitch, but under lay control and lay management. They had urged in Committee and outside the House that the Bill might change its aspect entirely, that the new Universities should have cut out of them every word of denominationalism and be absolutely free from the contamination of what went on in Dublin Castle, and that they should be allowed a free hand to run an undenominational University for the use of the laity, who would be encouraged to go to it, and allowed to manage it themselves. If that were done, the House would be wise in not stopping at £2,700,000, but if necessary giving £5,000,000 to have such a scheme carried into full effect. Clause 1 touched the whole matter which had been discussed so far by the Chief Secretary. Had any improvement been made in the Bill since it went to the Committee? Far from it. It was true that some of the Party to which he belonged were in favour of the Bill because they were in favour of denominational education, and of having Irish Catholics educated in a University by themselves. But was that the attitude taken up by the great Nonconformist party? If so, let them pass the Bill, but do not let them have any more of this humbug of saying they were in favour of undenominational teaching when the English Bill was before the House, and then on the Irish Bill saying the more denominational the Bill was made the better. The Bill he thought would put a stop once for all to a considerable amount of the nonsense that was talked by Nonconformists on the other side of the House. This clause was the keystone of the arch. The Chief Secretary was doing harm to Ireland and to people who left Ireland for other parts of the world. He had understood the question about as little as he understood the Irish nature, and the country over which he was Chief Secretary The problem there was to mix up the Roman Catholics and the Protestants as much as they could. He earnestly implored the Government, if it was not too late, to strike out of the Bill everything which was going to Archbishop this and Bishop somebody else, and all the Presbyterian clergymen in the North. Although he was a Presbyterian himself, he would allow none of them to have anything to do with the Bill. He had fought in Committee, and done all he possibly could to try and make the Bill less denominational. He had fought hard and conscientiously for what he held to be the best interests of the people. The Bill, he supposed, must go through, but in the meantime he begged to move to leave out Clause 1.

MR. MOORE (Armagh, N.)

agreed that the first clause and the machinery which it provided, the abolition of existing universities, and the creation of a new one, really went to the root of the whole matter. He wished to point out what an extraordinary position the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were in, because the position they had invariably taken up in matters of education was that State money was not to be used for denominational purposes. No one had recognised the pinch of that more than the Chief Secretary himself, because from start to finish he had pictured this scheme as undenominational. But now, with the Amendment which had been accepted, from whichever quarter they came as long as they were in a denominational direction, the Bill was not of the same colour or complexion that it was when it passed Second Reading, although they had always contended that the original intention had only become more apparent by the proceedings in Committee. It was always there. He rejoiced to find that this had become more and more appreciated in the ranks of the Party opposite. They were continually receiving from representative associations and organisations which professed the political faith of hon. Members opposite protests against the Bill. Only the previous day he had received a circular signed by the Rev. John Hirst Hollowell of Rochdale, a clergyman of some standing in the religious and political world, in which he said— In view of this and the other doubtful features of the Bill, which are opposed to the traditional policy of the Liberal Party, and which will accentuate existing religions differences in Ireland instead of providing a national settlement of this important question, the executive committee earnestly recommends the postponement of the Bill with a view to its Amendment on lines analagous to those of the Manchester University. When it was suggested that this new University should be analogous to the Manchester University, the fact remained that the present scheme was like nothing in the whole history of University creation, either in the heavens above, the earth below, or the waters beneath. There was not a single Roman Catholic University in Europe founded or established on lines of this sort. It was true they had a Roman Catholic University in Belgium, but the Catholics found the money for it, and therefore they were entitled to control it. The State found the money for Universities in Germany and Austria, but the State preserved a superior control. There was not a vestige of control in the State in regard to the money which was being provided under this Bill for a University of a denominational character. Could anyone deny that these new Universities, from the very moment of their inception, would be absolutely denominational, and yet all this was being done with State money. Mr. Hirst Hollowell denounced the proposal in no unmeasured terms. The House was being kept in the dark as to what the names of these new Universities were to be. The Third Reading was to take place on Saturday, and up to the present no suggestion whatever had been made in regard to the name. The clause said it would be determined by His Majesty the King, and the Chief Secretary said it would be determined by the governing body after hey had been called into existence. The reason he was anxious upon this point was that they had in Dublin the University of Dublin or Trinity College, and he was anxious that in the christening of the new University there would be no interference in title by the adoption of anything that would conflict with the well-known name of the University of Dublin. He knew that the Chief Secretary had given him an undertaking on this point, but if the choice of the name was to be left to the senate they ought clearly to understand that the new title was not to conflict with the recognised University of Dublin and Trinity College. The Bill had gone out of its way to destroy the Royal University, which was still a flourishing institution. He noticed that within the last month over a thousand persons had passed examinations in that institution. Therefore it was still an active working concern. At the Royal University they could get a degree by passing examinations, and nothing more was required, in consequence of their holding extern students' classes. He thought provision should be made for these extern students who desired to improve their education, young clergymen from the country, national school teachers, and people in the smaller country towns. It would be hard on these people to have their existing privileges and rights swept away while no provision was otherwise made for them.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 7, to leave out Clause 1."—(Captain Craig.)

Question proposed, "That the words of the clause, to the word 'two,' in page 1, line 8, stand part of the Bill."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIREELL,) Bristol, N.

congratulated the House on being able to discuss the Bill free from the menace of the guillotine, and pointed out that hon. Gentlemen had referred in their speeches to many questions that would ultimately come up for consideration on particular Amendments. The clause had no reference to anything of a denominational or undenominational character. It simply proposed to establish two Universities in Ireland and the extinction of the Royal University. It would be impossible, however, to create two Universities in Ireland and leave the Royal University alone. The subject of extern students was important, but it would be discussed hereafter on an Amendment raising the question. He repeated the assurance which he had given already that His Majesty would in no circumstances allow either of the Univerities in Belfast or Dublin to take any name which should interfere with Trinity College under the name of the University of Dublin. Whatever would be the name chosen it would not be the University of Dublin, neither would it make any use of the name of Trinity College. The clearest possible distinction would be made between these two Universities, so that a student in Ireland would be under no mistake as to which University he was going to attend. If Clause 1 were omitted from the Bill the House might as well go home. He admired the way in which hon. Members opposite had fought this Bill in Committee upstairs—their courage, tenacity, and good temper; but it was impossible for him at this stage to cut out a clause on which everything else in the Bill was founded. The Government were anxious to establish in Ireland a teaching University, and they wanted to associate degrees in Ireland with other characteristics than those merely of examination. This point had been argued over and over again. As to the University of Belfast, he had been very much exposed during the last year to demands from the people of Belfast having this University in their minds. Personally he could not undertake to distinguish between the inhabitants of Belfast, though the hon. Member opposite admitted that there were some influential classes on the side of the Chief Secretary. The Nationalist Member for Belfast was also in favour of the proposal, and he represented a certain amount of opinion in the city. He was animated by the same spirit and by the same hope as the hon. and gallant Member in wishing to see all sections of opinion brought together in support of religious peace, and he was encouraged in holding that hope by what he heard of the desires and intentions of the Roman Catholic population of Belfast and neighbourhood to avail themselves of the benefits of education within the walls of the old Queen's College, which had become a University. Indeed, he was encouraged to believe that he might live long enough to see the time arrive when there would be numbers of Roman Catholic students within the walls of the University of Belfast and when the ideas of the hon. Member and others of his way of thinking would be gloriously realised.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

expressed his profound disappointment with the character of the Bill. From the outset of his Parliamentary career he had been a supporter of a Roman Catholic University in Ireland What he contemplated then was a denominational University, not a theological seminary. When they looked further into the way in which the powers conferred by this clause were exercised, when they looked at the constitution of the governing body—the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it possessed an enormous majority of Roman Catholics on it—they saw that this was not a Roman Catholic University in which clergy and laity might work together freely in the advancement of learning, but an institution which would be wholly and solely under the government of priests of the higher order.

MR. BIRRELL

No.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said the right hon. Gentleman would carry it out in the way by which it was alleged the Act of Union was carried. He would buy everybody who was worth buying either by money or by influence. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh ! Oh !"] He only asked hon. Members who said "Oh! Oh!" to look at the schedule of the Bill which contained the financial provisions, the provisions about affiliation, the admission of outside societies to the government of this Roman Catholic University, in order to see what he meant. He said without fear of contradiction that the right hon. Gentleman had bought everybody it was necessary to buy. Under these circumstances what was his object in describing this as an undenominational measure? What was his object in putting in a clause forbidding a test for teachers? What would the right hon. Gentleman say of an Education Bill for England in which there was a specific clause forbidding any test for teachers, but in which the management of the schools or Universities was carefully secured to the various denominations? What chance would a Protestant have of obtaining an appointment in a Roman Catholic college or University?

MR. BIRRELL

Plenty.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

The right hon. Gentleman said "Plenty"; he was not so trustful of English boards of management in connection with English schools. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were mot elected."] Nor are these. The right hon. Gentleman had unfortunately been entrusted with the introduction of two Education Bills, and when one looked at the essentially undenominational character of the Bill of 1906, and the essentially denominational character of the Bill of 1908, he could only congratulate him on an exhibition of political dexterity.

MR. BIRRELL

Have you read Clause 4 in the Bill of 1906?

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said the right hon. Gentleman had repeatedly described that clause as a denominational clause in an undenominational Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that the merit of it was that it was there at all, and he minimised it to an extent which made it practically useless for a great denomination to which education in this country owed so much. He rose only to express his profound disappointment in this matter. He could not vote for the rejection of the first clause of the Bill.

MR. BIRRELL

Why not?

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he would tell the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it was essential that the highest education available should be at the service of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, as they could best procure it. He would gladly have seen the Bill so framed that the advancement of learning and the opportunities of study might be equally available for the clergy and the laity of the Roman Catholic Church, but he did not believe that any University, the main purpose of which was the advancement of learning, could discharge that purpose rightly which was under clerical domination, whether that domination was of a Nonconformist, Anglican, or Roman Catholic character. Such as it was, he accepted the Bill for what it was worth, but he thought the House and the country ought to realise the character of the Bill they were passing, the extraordinary contradiction in the action of the Government in regard to education in Ireland and in England, and the fact that they were passing a frankly denominational measure which placed education in Ireland in the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

MR. HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)

said he desired to make one other protest against the root principle of the Bill. The hon. Baronet had concluded his speech by referring to this Bill as frankly denominational. He had always taken that view, and he did not think his right hon. friend could blame him for having done so, and for voting against the Bill on that ground. Clause 1 had been specially advocated on four grounds, namely, that the Universities were too free, non-federal, residential, and undenominational. All those four defences of the clause were absolutely unsound. He did not think, in the first instance, that the new Dublin University could be regarded as free. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of it as a University that would be entirely under clerical control. [Cries of "Oh! oh!"] That was met by cries of "Oh! oh! but there were two strongly opposed opinions in regard to the matter, and to meet these views his right hon. friend had introduced in the schedule many checks and counter checks to get this kind of influence and the other kind of influence to work. When that was the case, the Government could not claim that they had carried out the promise that the University was to be residential. His right hon. friend could not justify that claim. Two small colleges were to be recognised—the Magee and the Maynooth—and there would be opportunities for the same kind of treatment to a large number of other kinds of colleges which had a large number of students. That might be good, bad, or indifferent, but it was not a residential University. He did not think the proposal could be commended on the ground that the University was free and residential. They had had the justification placed before them that these Universities were non-federal. It had been said that Universities with federated colleges at great distances from one another were bad in principle and must not be adopted in future. The glory of the Bill which they were passing was that it was free from old principles, and that it established Universities on a new principle. What was to happen was the establishment of a University with three colleges—one in Dublin, one in Cork, and one in Galway. It was a curious thing that the college to be established in Belfast was to be omitted from that University. They were going to have in Belfast a University separately established. Was that the sole reason why it was omitted? It seemed to him obvious that the reason was that they were going to get three colleges of a similar and homogeneous denominational type in connection with the new Dublin University. That was perfectly obvious on the lace of it. In Dublin they would have two colleges side by side—one Trinity, and another the name of which he did not know. The Government were seeking to establish three denominational colleges, and not to abolish the federal system. They could have made arrangements with Trinity, a Parliamentary representative of Dublin University having made certain offers on behalf of that college with the view to the demands of the Roman Catholics being met. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken those offers as a basis, he did not think there would have been much difficulty in the long run of establishing a college where both Protestants and Roman Catholics would have been able to go What was now proposed might be right or wrong, but he maintained that it was not an undenominational University. What would have been said if the Leader of the Opposition had introduced such a Bill as that now before the House? He doubted whether the Conservative Party, in view of the feeling in these days, would ever have dared to bring in such a Bill.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

said no one would be surprised at the action of the mover and seconder of the-Amendment nor at the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. That speech was only interesting to him for one observation. The hon. Member seemed to think that it would have been a more reasonable proceeding if the circumstances of the Catholics of Ireland I had been dealt with in conjunction with Trinity College. Of course he knew that the proposal to deal with that grievance by putting a second college in the University of Dublin was denounced and rejected by Trinity College. That was not what he meant. He meant that the Catholic grievance should be met by building a Catholic chapel in Trinity College. That was interesting as coming from him, and when the question arose later as to the building of denominational chapels within the precincts of these Universities he hoped the action of the hon. Gentleman would be consistent with the declaration he had now made.

MR. HUTTON

What I said was that in a frankly denominational University I saw no objection to a denominational chapel.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he had not risen merely for the purpose of arguing that matter with the hon. Gentleman, whose views were perfectly well known as those of a perfectly frank and consistent opponent of this Bill on every possible occasion when a vital Amendment had been proposed. Nor had he risen for the purpose of arguing with the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the rejection of the clause, but he had risen in consequence of what he must describe as the extraordinary speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University. That hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by reminding the House that he had always been in favour of what he called a Catholic University for Ireland, and that even when his own party did not share that view and were opposed to that course as impracticable he voted in favour of a Catholic University for Ireland, and yet he proceeded to criticise this Bill on the utterly false ground that it was a denominational Bill and that it created a Catholic University. The attitude of the hon. Gentleman was utterly inconsistent, and he could not understand how an hon. Gentleman whom they always understood to be a friend to a fair settlement of the question and who had on more than one occasion made very broad-minded and friendly speeches on the matter, should have put into his remarks that afternoon such apparently bitter hostility. It was all very well to tell them that he was in favour of a settlement of the question which was impracticable. But here was a practicable settlement of the question which had a chance of passing, and the hon. Gentleman seized the opportunity of delivering what one might almost call a cruel and malignant attack on the Bill. [Cries of "Oh."] Perhaps he ought not to use the word "malignant," he had no desire to be offensive, but he could not understand the haste with which the hon. Gentleman had rushed into the fray against this practical effort, excusing himself by saying that in the past he had supported measures then impossible to carry out. What was the argument of the hon. Gentleman? He said that these were denominational Universities, because they were governed and controlled by the hierarchy in Ireland or because the one in Dublin, at all events, would be controlled by the hierarchy in Ireland. How did he make that out? The University in Dublin would be governed by a Senate nominated by the Crown for the first five years. That Senate consisted of about forty members of whom only four or five were clergymen. Their names were before the House, and how anyone reading these names could say that for the first five years, at any rate, those Universities were to be controlled by the hierarchy passed his understanding. At the end of five years the University would be governed by a freely-elected Senate on which no single clergyman of any denomination—bishop or priest—would have a seat ex-officio. No man could sit on that new Senate after five years unless he was elected, with the single exception of those nominated by the Crown. Let him remind the House how the Senate was to be constituted. It was a Senate of thirty-five members. The Chancellor of the University, one; the Presidents of the Constituent Colleges, three; persons nominated by His Majesty, of whom at least one should be a woman, four; elected by the governing body of the new College having its seat in Dublin, three; at least being members of an Academic Council in the College, six; elected by the governing body of Queen's College, Cork, and two being members of the Academic Council of the College, four; elected by the governing body of Queen's College, Galway, two being members of the Academic Council of the College, four; the Registrar, one; elected by Convocation, eight; and four co-opted—total, thirty-five. That would be a freely elected body. It was little short of absurd for anybody to say that in the future this University would be governed or controlled by the hierarchy or anybody except the body forming the University just in the same way as all other Universities in the country. The second argument the hon. Gentleman used was as to the power of affiliation, to which he apparently strongly objected. The power of affiliation which was contained in the Bill was a proposal almost the same as the power of affiliation to be found in the charters of every one of the newly created Universities in this country, such as Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield. The hon. Gentleman had utterly failed to adduce any sound argument to show that his contention that this would be a clerically governed University was right. He hoped the Amendment would be rejected at once, and that the House would proceed with the consideration of the Bill in detail.

*MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)

said he had increasing admiration for the facility of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford for forgetting very obvious facts. During the Committee stage of the Bill there was an important Amendment in the name of his hon. friend the Member for the Cambridge University. That Amendment if it had gone to a division in the ordinary way, would have been carried against the Government. The Chief Secretary felt that he would prefer that a division should not take place on that occasion. And why? Because he was not personally in sympathy with that Amendment which gave power to the Roman Catholic authorities to build a chapel within the precincts of the University College in Dublin. What happened? That Amendment was referred to the hierarchy in the hope—[Cries of "No."] He made the statement on his own responsibility. That Amendment was referred to the hierarchy.

MR. BIRRELL

By whom?

*MR. BARRIE

By the Chief Secretary.

MR. BIRRELL

Nothing of the sort.

*MR BARRIE

; Not directly but indirectly.

MR. BIRRELL

Not directly nor indirectly. I utterly deny it.

*MR. BARRIE

The Chief Secretary admitted he did not like it. This Amendment was finally inserted in the Bill.

MR. BUTCHER (Cambridge University)

May I make one thing clear? The Amendment alluded to was my Amendment, and it is stated that it was referred, by someone unknown, to the hierarchy. I did not communicate with any single priest or bishop. If it was communicated to the hierarchy I had nothing to do with it.

MR. BIRRELL

Nor I.

SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS

Who did it?

*MR. BARRIE

It was communicated to the hierarchy. All I said was that it was communicated by someone. I did not refer to the hon. Member for Cambridge University.

MR. BIRRELL

No, no. The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. The Amendment relating to the chapel question was never so communicated. On the chapel question there was never any meeting of the bishops. The thing the hon. Member has in mind is probably a meeting of the bishops at Maynooth with reference to an Amendment of the Member for Cambridge University imposing conditions of residence.

*MR. BARRIE

With all respect I say that what I have stated actually took place—[Cries of "Name"]—and after that the Amendment was reluctantly accepted by the Chief Secretary.

MR. BIRRELL

Not a bit. That is absolutely untrue. There was no communication with any bishop whatever with reference, to the question, of the chapel—absolutely none.

*MR. BARRIE

I fully accept the Chief Secretary's assurance, while still saying, with all respect and asking the House to accept this statement, that the fact remains that the opinion of the Irish bishops was taken on this important Amendment, and that their opinion prevailed.

SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS

By whom?

*MR. BARRIE

And that serious alteration was made in the Bill.

MR. BIRRELL

Not at all.

*MR. BARRIE

Said it was well known that the hierarchy had shaped this Bill from beginning to end. He was sorry that some of his Nonconformist friends—he spoke as a Nonconformist himself—seemed to accept this repudiation by the Chief Secretary. He was sorry he was unable to do so. He still believed that the policy of the hierarchy was the policy of this whole Bill. He would have had the greatest sympathy with the Government if they had come to the House and said frankly, "We wish to endow a Roman Catholic University in Ireland." He thought that many friends of higher education would have said that the Government would be able to make out a strong case for it; but he had no sympathy, on the contrary, he had the greatest contempt for intriguing and wire-pulling which had finally brought them to the stage they had arrived at that afternoon. In the Chief Secretary's brief contribution to the debate he had again asserted, what he had previously asserted in the Committee upstairs, that he had the people of Belfast behind him in planting a University in that city.

MR. BIRRELL

I did not say anything of the kind. I said a good many people in Belfast.

*MR. BARRIE

said he accepted the qualification but did not think that they were very much further advanced. They knew that the professorial classes in Belfast were in sympathy with this movement, but that all the public bodies who had met since the Bill was introduced and during the intervening months had repudiated this settlement of the higher education question. As bearing out what he had said he might be allowed to quote the latest deliverance of the Higher Education Committee of the Presbyterian Church. They had spoken in terms which even the Chief Secretary could not minimise as to what their opinion of the Bill was, and this was an opinion expressed on the Bill since it came out of Committee— The Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, having fall power to speak in the name of the Church, has observed with gravest concern that in the progress of the Irish Universities Bill through Committee of the House of Commons, the sectarian character and tendencies of the constitution of his proposed new University and college for Roman Catholics so strongly condemned at the special meeting of the General Assembly in April last, had been seriously increased, all Amendments designed to make the new institutions less denominational having been systematically rejected. As a result, if the measure as amended in Committee passes into law a denominational University with denominational constituent colleges will, in contravention of the settled policy of the past forty years be irrevocably established in this country. He left it there. Even the Chief Secretary knew the numbers and the influence of the Presbyterian Church. That was the opinion of that body and he agreed with it.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said he largely agreed with the views expressed on the Bill by hon. Members behind him. It had been said by the hon. Member for the Morley division that if they (the Opposition) had proposed a Bill anything like this the opposition offered to it would have been very different from that which was now being offered to it in that House. The Leader of the Opposition had held the office of Leader of the Unionist Party for a longer period than any other leader for many years. He enjoyed the confidence and support of his party to a degree that could never be exceeded, and he was a strong and powerful advocate of the extension of University education in Ireland. But notwithstanding that fact, even his great weight, and ability had been insufficient to enable the party to bring in a measure of the kind. No one could wonder that hon. Members behind him renewed the protests they made on the Second Reading, because it must be remembered that the Government were inviting the House to agree to a departure of the gravest possible kind, which might be of the utmost moment not only to the education of Ireland but to the cause of education elsewhere. This momentous step was being taken at the fag end of a session, and the time alloted for the consideration of the Amendments on the Paper were of the briefest kind. But whether they liked the Bill or not, the Second Reading had been passed by an overwhelming majority of the House and the Bill had gone through Committee. But during its progress it had been materially altered, in what he and others considered a wrong direction. No one who examined the Bill on its merits now could but say that it was in a very much larger degree a purely denominational Bill than when it was read a second time. An impartial man would find it difficult to recognise in it the measure which the Chief Secretary asked leave to introduce, and all that could be expected now was that Amendments might be inserted on the Report Stage which would improve the measure, especially with regard to the control that was going to be exercised over the Universities. He would, therefore, suggest to his hon. friends that having expressed their views they should proceed with the Amendments with a view to improving the measure.

*MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim S.)

said the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as to how it could be contended for a moment that the Universities to be set up by this Bill could be controlled by the Roman Catholic hierarchy was best answered by another question, which was how had the present Queen's Colleges in Ireland been controlled and practically ruined by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood. Everybody knew that the reason this Bill was introduced was that the Roman Catholic hierarchy was not satisfied with the present University education provided. Forty or fifty years ago a meeting of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland discussed whether it was right of Roman Catholic parents to allow their children to attend the Queen's Colleges. By a majority of one it was decided it was not. They described the Queen's Colleges as godless institutions, and said that parents allowing their children to attend incurred grave responsibility, and the effect was that these institutions from that time had been practically starved out of existence. In like manner could the Roman Catholic hierarchy destroy the usefulness of the Dublin University now proposed to be set up. The Roman Catholic hierarchy claimed absolute control in the domain of education as they did in that of religion, and if that was the case it was perfectly plain that they would control these new institutions. Whether it was a question of primary, secondary, or University education, the Roman Catholic hierarchy would be the final judges. The whole question of affiliation was bound up with denominationalism. It simply meant affiliation of Maynooth and possibly of Magee College in the North of Ireland. The importance of this question would be realised by the House when he reminded them that Maynooth was a very large institution, and that the number of students who would take advantage of the right of affiliation proposed to be given to the institution would probably out-number students in any one, and possibly in any two, of the constituent colleges in the University. To give those students all the rights and privileges of the parent University was a very important proposal, when they remembered that the institution existed entirely for the education of persons for the Roman Catholic priesthood. When they remembered further that all those students could take a degree at this new University and ipso facto became members of the ultimate governing body of the Univesity—[An HON. MEMBER: They only get votes for Convocation.]—He said "ultimate governing body," because Convocation would appoint the actual governing body of the University, and it did not take much calculation to realise that in a very short time the Convocation in Dublin would be composed very largely—he did not say they would be the majority—of priests of the Roman Catholic Church. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Those who were in favour of the Bill said—"Why should that not be so?" But they who opposed it said the reason it should not be so was because they wanted to see education in Ireland developed on undenominational lines. He submitted that it was absolutely futile to contend any longer that the proposals of this Bill were unsectarian and undenominational. They were nothing of the sort; and if the Chief Secretary would once and for all give up that line of argument, and frankly admit what practically everybody knew, that this was a denominational proposal, he did not pretend to say that they would vote for the Bills, but he could assure the right hon. Member that a great many of the arguments which would be used in reference to the various proposals would be omitted. If the right hon. Gentleman once for all admitted that this was a denominational Bill he would be simply telling them that which everybody in his heart of hearts knew perfectly well to be the fact. Those who shared his views were absolutely opposed to these proposals, believing that they would work a good deal of harm and that, far from bringing Roman Catholics and Protestants together, as the right hon. Gentleman said he devoutly hoped they would, they would have the opposite effect. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he was animated by the hope that even in his lifetime he would see that the effect of these Universities would be to bring Roman Catholics and Protestants together. That, to his mind, was the vainest and most ridiculous hope that could possibly be entertained by any man in that House. The effect of the Bill was bound to be the very reverse. It had been the reverse in the case of elementary education, and how could they possibly expect that it would be different in the case of University education? It seemed to him to be against all logic and common sense to say that they were going to bring two great religious denominations together by providing every facility for their keeping apart. Surely, if they wanted to bring the denominations together they should do it at the stage of elementary education, and keep them together from that time onward, till their education was completed. Of course, he recognised it was impossible now to have any hope of making primary education undenominational in Ireland; that hope had long past; but the people of the North of Ireland had hoped that at any rate University education would be saved from this denominationalising process which he was sorry to say might, he would not say ruin, but seriously disfigure education in Ireland. He protested against the statement so often made by the Chief Secretary that the Bill was undenominational, and he protested against hon. Mem-

bers opposite—when it was remembered how they had acted for the last four or five years on the educational question in England—offering to them in Ireland a new system of University education based on the very foundation which they themselves for years past had been decrying and endeavouring to root up in this country.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 231; Noes, 31. (Division List No 213.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Doughty, Sir George	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Duffy, William J.	Kerry, Earl of
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Kettle, Thomas Michael
Ambrose, Robert	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Kilbride, Denis
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Laidlaw, Robert
Ashley, W. W.	Erskine, David C.	Lamont, Norman
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)	Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Everett, R. Lacey	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Farrell, James Patrick	Lewis, John Herbert
Barnes, G. N.	Fenwick, Charles	Lundon, W.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Ferens, T. R.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Beauchamp, E.	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Lyell, Charles Henry
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Ffrench, Peter	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Field, William	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Bertram, Julius	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Flynn, James Christopher	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Boland, John	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Maclean, Donald
Brace, William	Fuller, John Michael F.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Bramsdon, T. A.	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Macpherson, J. T.
Branch, James	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Brigg, John	Glendinning, R. G.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Burnes, Rt. Hon. John	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	M'Kean, John
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Goulding, Edward Alfred	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Killop, W.
Byles, William Pollard	Gulland, John W.	Magnus, Sir Philip
Cameron, Robert	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Mallet, Charles E.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Halpin, J.	Massie, J.
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale	Masterman, C. F. G.
Chance, Frederick William	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Meagher, Michael
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Harrington, Timothy	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.
Clancy, John Joseph	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Cleland, J. W.	Harvey, W. E (Derbyshire, N. E.	Mond, A.
Clough, William	Haworth, Arthur A.	Mooney, J. J.
Clynes, J. R.	Hayden, John Patrick	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Hazleton, Richard	Morrell, Philip
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Healy, Timothy Michael	Murnaghan, George
Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Higham, John Sharp	Myer, Horatio
Crean, Eugene	Hills J. W.	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Crooks, William	Holt, Richard Durning	Napier, T. B.
Cullinan, J.	Horniman, Emslie John	Nolan, Joseph
Curran, Peter Francis	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Dalziel, James Henry	Hudson, Water	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Idris, T. H. W.	Nussey, Thomas Williams
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Jackson, R. S.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Delany, William	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Brien, William Cork)
Devlin, Joseph	Jowett, F. W.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Dillon, John	Joyce, Michael	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Donelan, Captain A.	Kavanagh, Walter M.	O'Doherty, Philip
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Tillett, Louis John
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
O'Dowd, John	Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Grady, J.	Roche, John (Galway, East)	Verney, F. W.
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Roe, Sir Thomas	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.	Russell, T. W.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
O'Malley, William	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Walsh, Stephen
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Wardle, George J.
Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend,	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Parker, James (Halifax)	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)	Waterlow, D. S.
Partington, Oswald	Sears, J. E.	Watt, Henry A.
Percy, Earl	Seddon, J.	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Spicer, Sir Albert	Wills, Arthur Walters
Reddy, M.	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Steadman, W. C.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Redmond, William (Clare)	Strachey, Sir Edward	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Young, Samuel
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Yoxall, James Henry
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Summerbell, T.
Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)	Sutherland, J. E.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt Hon. Sir Alex. F.	Guinness, Walter Edward	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hamilton, Marquess of	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Valentia, Viscount
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hedges, A. Paget	Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Cave, George	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)
Clark, George Smith	Lowe, Sir Francis William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Moore.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Oddy, John James

*MR. C. J. O'DONNELL (Newington, Walworth) moved an Amendment to Clause 1, which would have had the effect of authorising the foundation of only one new University, with its seat in Dublin. He said that he addressed himself to the Bill because he was the only graduate of the Royal University on that side of the House and the Royal University was being destroyed by this Bill. The remarkable point about the Bill was that it created two Universities. The demand from Ireland had never been for two but for one extra University, a Catholic University in Dublin, and the point of his Amendment was that if it was necessary to create a Catholic University, and the demand had been made by numbers of venerable and educated men, men whose opinion ought to be listened to, surely the demand might be granted without destroying the University which already existed. The whole basis of the Bill was the inaccurate assertion that the Royal University had been a failure. The Queen's University last year had more than 4,000 students on its list, a larger number than any other University in the three Kingdoms except London. It would strike one as the natural course for the Government to take under the circumstances was to deal with the particular demand and to create a Catholic University, because Gentlemen opposite, who represented extreme Protestant opinion, had said they would consider favourably the creation of a Catholic University, and he held that it was the feeling of a very large number of Protestants in Ireland. But it did not at all necessitate the destruction of the existing University. It was alleged that the Royal University had been a failure because Catholics were prevented from going to it by their clerical superiors, but it had not only been attended by this large body of students but had also been remarkably successful, Professors, members of the Bar, and crowds of medical men had gone through the Arts course and he believed there were four distinguished Judges who were graduates of the Royal University. Two members of it had reached the House of Lords. He could not, therefore, understand what the position taken by the Government in this matter was. It was an entirely illiberal proposal to destroy a successful unsectarian University. It was very good of hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept the measure, but he was afraid they did not remember that while conciliating one part of Ireland they were doing a very appreciable wrong to another part. The province of Ulster ought to be considered. They had no right to force on the North of Ireland a system which they would not have in the South of Ireland. He proposed his Amendment as a protest on behalf of the Royal University which he thought was being extremely badly used. Its Convocation had passed resolutions hostile to the measure and they had been treated with absolute disregard. He did not know that Convocation was even consulted by the Chief Secretary. That was riot the way to go to work. It was entitled to be treated with some degree of respect, but it had been thrown aside—for what motive he would not say. If they already had an undenominational University why should they have a second when nobody had asked for it? The only plan was to create a denominational University in Dublin.

MR. MOORE

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word found' to end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'one new University in Ireland, having its seat at Dublin.'"—(Mr. C. J. O'Donnell.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part."

MR. BIRRELL

said the hon. Member would realise that it was undesirable for him to argue the whole question over again, and to state why they had found it necessary to substitute for the Royal University a University of another character. The hon. Member naturally attached importance to the old Royal University, and he had never denied that as an examining body, and as far as an examining body could be a University at all, it fulfilled its duty well. The 4,000 students who the hon. Member said attended it had only attended the examination hall. Ireland was discontented at being confined to the existing colleges. He did not think he could usefully occupy the time of the House further.

Amendment negatived.

CAPTAIN CRAIG moved an Amendment to the clause providing that the names of the two Universities should be the Royal University, Dublin, and the Queen's University, Belfast. He said it was de sired that the new Universities should be called by names which would assure that as far as Dublin was concerned the new University there should not clash with Trinity. Some of them were convinced that they could not possibly have a better name for the Belfast University than the Queen's. It was well known, for he could not tell how many years, as the Queen's College, Belfast, and Queen's University before it, and the name had carried weight throughout the world. In regard to Dublin they thought it would meet with the approval of every one in Ireland that it should be called the Royal University. As the right hon. Gentleman had given up all hope of being able to find a name himself and intended to shelve it on to other shoulders, they had taken the bold step of perpetuating the name which at present existed, though he feared the new college would compare very unfavourably with the old.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word 'corporate,' to the word 'and, 'in line 13, and to insert the words' named the Royal University,' Dublin, and the 'Queen's University,' Belfast, respectively."—(Captain Craig.)

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

MR. BIRRELL

said he was rather surprised that the hon. Gentlemen should be so anxious to be godfathers to these two colleges. The responsibility was too great to be thrown upon him to determine by what name they should be called. The question was under careful consideration, and so far as Belfast was concerned, the general feeling was in favour of its being called Queen's University. But he was not in a position to assert that that would be the title, because it was an important subject on which a great number of people would like to be consulted, and it was a matter of the Royal prerogative. He thought Queen's University, Belfast, would at all events receive the support of a very large number of persons who were likely to be connected with it. In regard to the University in Dublin, that was a matter in which the Senate and also the general opinion amongst those who were likely to frequent the University and who were interested in its success were entitled to be consulted, and he was certainly not in a position now to declare what the name of the University was to be. He could only repeat what he had said over and over again, that His Majesty would certainly not consent to any name which would in any way be liable to be confused with the University of Dublin and Trinity College. At present he was not in a position to go further.

MR. WALTER LONG

thought the right hon. Gentleman's assurance might be accepted as satisfactory. He was, however, rather surprised, having regard to the great questions which he had been able to solve without much regard to the feelings of many people in Ireland, that he had not been able to solve the minor question of the name of the Universities. He might very well have taken the decision of the question into his own hands. However, they were entirely in his hands, and he thought they might rest satisfied.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment after the assurances given by the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MOORE moved an Amendment designed to secure that there should be a permanent lay majority on the governing body. The Chief Secretary had told them that this was to be an absolutely free and unfettered governing body, in no way subject to clerical control. To enable the Chief Secretary to carry out that intention it was very desirable that the statute should contain what was a very reasonable provision to secure that when this new University was set up there should at least be a lay majority on the governing body. He could not see what objection the Chief Secretary could have to his proposal. A very customary argument against this Amendment in Committee was that it was an insult to limit the clergy to a possible one fourth of the governing body. He moved this Amendment for the real benefit of University education, and at the risk of being described as "insulting" he would persist in it. He had no wish to say anything insolent in regard to the ministers connected with any church; he considered his action in this matter and the action of those who supported him in limiting the number of clergy would not by any means be so insulting as the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford which disqualified clergymen under the Local Government Act. He wished to disclaim any such sinister or malignant intention, but he desired the House to see that a rational and reasonable safeguard was put into the Bill, because charters might be altered or modified. He hoped the House would see that the governing bodies of these institutions which would have the control of State funds were free from clerical control and that would be secured by the adoption of this Amendment.

MR. BARRIE

, in seconding, said he had been reading the statute of the great University at Sydney where the clergy were not allowed to form more than one-third of the Senate. He thought that amply justified this Amendment, which, upon other grounds as well, they were anxious to have inserted. He would have the same objection to Presbyterian clergymen on the governing body of the Belfast University, because he thought the clerical element should be kept in a minority. He begged leave to second the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert the words, 'Provided that any governing body under this Act shall be composed as to three-fourths thereof of laymen.'"—(Mr. Moore.)

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

MR. BIRRELL

said he could not be a party to placing a permanent disqualification upon an educational matter upon persons who were trained divines either of one Church or another. Personally, he would much sooner deal with a cleric than with a clerically-minded layman. If they were going to exclude the clergy on educational grounds they were practically declaring that the electorate were incapable of choosing their own governing body. He thought that would be inflicting upon the electorate something approaching an insult, because they would practically be saying that they were not fit to elect the persons to represent them on the governing body, and they would only be allowing them to elect their representatives subject to the condition that they should not have more than one-fourth of the governing body clergymen. On this matter they must stand for freedom, and it must be left to the people to select the persons who were best qualified. To his astonishment—he would not say admiration—the hon. Members representing the North of Ireland were advocating undenominationalism. The Amendment, however, imposed upon the electorate of the University a condition which declared their incapacity to elect persons they might think best fitted. He thought the proposal was unreasonable. If they wanted a University at all they must place some measure of confidence in the graduates and the professors to chose their own governing body.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the views expressed in the Amendment at one time found general acceptance on the opposite side of the House, but now Liberal Members heard, in what they had proudly proclaimed to be the greatest Nonconformist Parliament ever elected, a member of the Government express his astonishment at an Amendment which he had entirely mis-described but which simply asked Parliament to lay down the governing principle of these institutions instead of leaving it to the bodies themselves. The Chief Secretary said it was a monstrous thing to impose these disabilities upon the clergy. The right hon. Gentleman was one of the most distinguished authorities on history, and surely he could not believe that this Amendment was imposing the disability upon the clergy for the first time. What about elections to the House of Commons? Was it an insult to say that there should be a majority of laymen on these governing bodies when it was a fact that a clergyman could not be elected a Member of that House whilst he was in Holy Orders? The Amendment simply meant that in the government of these great educational institutions, the control should rest in the hands of the laity, and not in the hands of the clergy in any Church. Many of them disbelieved in Universities being governed by the clergy, whether Protestant or Catholic, and he would vote as consistenly and with as much confidence against a proposal to vest powers of this kind in the clergy of his own Church as he would in regard to any other Church, not because he was wanting in respect to the clergy or did not believe in their capacity or fairness, but because he believed that the clergy of any Church were governed by rules and conditions—and their vision was frequently narrowed—which made it undesirable that they should exercise the far-reaching duties attaching to members of governing bodies. The Chief Secretary had said that the Amendment imposed a disability upon the electorate of the Universities; but it did nothing of the kind; all it did was to lay down that Parliament should decide the principle. The question was frequently argued as if it arose out of the bigoted views of his hon. friends towards the Catholic Church, but it was nothing of the kind. It was now proposed to create a University which it was believed would be largely dominated by Catholic influences in the South of Ireland, but by other influences in the North of Ireland. The Amendment simply meant that Parliament should decide that there should be a majority of laymen on the governing body. They were voting a large sum of public money for the endowment of these Universities. He was a believer in toleration in regard to all religion, and he hoped that this was only the beginning of a general settlement, although he had his doubts. But when they were voting large sums of money and taking it out of the pockets of the people of this country, surely Parliament was not only entitled to lay down what should be the governing principle, but it was also the duty of the House to see that a start was made in the right direction. The Amendment was a perfectly fair and just one, and four or five years ago it would have found almost universal acceptance from the supporters of the Government. Whatever might have made hon. Gentlemen opposite change their views, he and his friends had not changed theirs. They adhered still to the policy which they consistently advocated, and they would certainly vote for the Amendment.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said the House might assume that the governing bodies which the Chief Secretary proposed to set up to watch over and direct the destinies of these Universities during the first five years were, more or less, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion ideal bodies. The first senate of the University of Dublin was to be composed of thirty-nine persons, of whom about one-sixth were clergymen. In the case of Belfast University the first senate was to consist of thirty-three or thirty-four persons, of whom two were clergymen. That being so, he did not think anybody could say

that the proposal of his hon. friend to limit at all times the number of clergymen on the Senates of those Universities to one fourth was unreasonable. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would be able to contend that it would be impossible to get three-fourths of the members without going to the churches for them. Both in Dublin and Belfast it would be perfectly easy to get the whole number without going to the churches. There was, he believed, a feeling in all parts of the House that the control of these new Universities should be, as far as possible, in the hands of the laity, and that safeguards should tie introduced to prevent the control from being gradually, or possibly suddenly, taken out of the hands of the laity and handed over to the clergymen. The Amendment proposed by his hon. friend might be safely and advantageously adopted.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 219. (Division List No. 214.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Armitage, R.	Guinness, Walter Edward	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Ashley, W. W.	Hamilton, Marquess of	Sears, J. E.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Barnes, G. N.	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Beck, A. Cecil	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Steadman, W. C.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Boulton, A. C. F.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Bull, Sir William James	Higham, John Sharp	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cave, George	Hill, Sir Clement	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Clark, George Smith	Kerry, Earl of	Thornton, Percy M.
Clough, William	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Valentia, Viscount
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Lowe, Sir Francis William	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Morrison-Bell, Captain	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Nield, Herbert
Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Oddy, John James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Moore and Mr. Hugh Barrie.
Fell, Arthur	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Percy, Earl
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Bowerman, C. W.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Barnard, E. B.	Brace, William
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Bramsdon, T. A.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Beale, W. P.	Brigg, John
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Beauchamp, E.	Burke, E. Haviland-
Ambrose, Robert	Bennett, E. N.	Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Berridge, T. H. D.	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Balcarres, Lord	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cameron, Robert
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Boland, John	Chance, Frederick William
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Lamont, Norman	Redmond, William (Clare)
Clancy, John Joseph	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th
Cleland, J. W.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Clynes J. R.	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W	Lewis, John Herbert	Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lundon, W.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Robinson, S.
Crean, Eugene	Lynch, H. B.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Cullinan, J.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Curran, Peter Francis	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Delany, William	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Devlin, Joseph	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Rowlands, J.
Diekinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	M'Kean, John	Russell, T. W.
Dillon, John	M'Killop, W.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Donelan, Captain A.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Doughty, Sir George	M'Micking, Major G.	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Duffy, William J.	Mallet, Charles E.	Seaverns, J. H.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln	Seddon, J.
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Massie, J.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Meagher, Michael	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Erskine, David C.	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Menzies, Walter	Snowden, P.
Everett, R. Lacey	Middlebrook, William	Spicer, Sir Albert
Farrell, James Patrick	Mond, A.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Fenwick, Charles	Mooney, J. J.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Ferens, T. R.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Summerbell, T.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Morrell, Philip	Sutherland, J. E.
Ffrench, Peter	Murnaghan, George	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Field, William	Murphy, John (Kerry East)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Flynn, James Christopher	Myer, Horatio	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Napier, T. B.	Toulmin, George
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Nolan, Joseph	Ure, Alexander
Halpin, J.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Walsh, Stephen
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Walters, John Tudor
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Nuttall, Harry	Wardle, George J.
Harrington, Timothy	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Hayden, John Patrick	O'Brien, William (Cork)	Waterlow, D. S.
Hazleton, Richard	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Watt, Henry A.
Healy, Timothy Michael	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Henry, Charles S.	O'Doherty, Philip	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Whitehead, Rowland
Hogan, Michael	O'Dowd, John	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Holt, Richard Durning	O'Grady, J.	Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Horniman, Emslie John	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Hudson, Walter	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.	Williamson, A.
Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Malley, William	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Jackson, R. S.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Parker, James (Halifax)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea	Partington, Oswald	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Young, Samuel
Jowett, F. W.	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Yoxall, James Henry
Joyce, Michael	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Kavanagh, Walter M.	Power, Patrick Joseph	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Raphael, Herbert H.
Kettle, Thomas Michael	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Kilbride, Denis	Reddy, M.
Laidlaw, Robert	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

*MR. BARRIE moved an Amendment to provide that Queen's College, Belfast, should not be dissolved. He explained that this Amendment should be read in conjunction with an Amendment on Clause 2 of which he had given notice with the object of making Queen's College, Belfast, and Magee College, Londonderry, "constituent colleges of the new University having its seat at Belfast." He found it necessary to move the Amendment in order to bring before the House the case of Magee College, Londonderry, which for many years had been doing excellent work for higher education in Ireland. It was the only educational institution in Ireland which, as he hoped to show, would suffer seriously under the Bill as now before the House. He thought it necessary, the matter being of the greatest and most urgent importance to this institution to go into considerable details. The matter had only come before him in a complete shape this week, when he received a letter from the President of Magee College asking him to place the facts before the House on the Report stage of the Bill. He proposed to read a few extracts from the correspondence, premising his remarks by saying that an important deputation waited on the Chief Secretary in December last year when the right hon. Gentleman made the statement referred to:— He would not allow Magee College to be placed in a worse position than it was in at present under the Royal University.

It was fully expected when the Bill was introduced that that promise would be fulfilled; but he was sorry to say that it was not. Immediately after the introduction of the Bill, Dr. Leebody wrote to the Chief Secretary as follows:—

"Dear Sir,

Will you pardon me if I express to you my keen disappointment (which is I believe shared by all my colleagues) on learning that Magee College is not formally recognised in your University Hill. I can understand the difficulty of giving formal recognition to Maynooth, which is a purely ecclesiastical college, but since the founding of the Royal University the essential difference between Magee College and Maynooth has been admitted, and we have enjoyed the same status in the University as the Queen's Colleges,"

and he went on to repeat the case for Magee College, which was pretty well covered in his letter. The next letter in the correspondence was from the Chief Secretary, or rather from the private secretary of the Chief Secretary and was as follows— Mr. Birrell asks me to say that he should have acknowledged your recent letter to him about the position of Magee College. He desires me now to say that he hopes that by a discussion of the question the matters at issue could be fairly adjusted, and with that object he would be glad to have a Conference in Dublin with yourself and Mr. Cooke and the President of Queen's College, and Sir James Dougherty would be available for giving the help in the matter that his special knowledge of the situation enables him to render. Mr. Birrell has to leave Dublin for Easter, but will be back on Tuesday, and will be able to meet you on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. Sir James Dougherty is in communication with Mr. Cooke and Dr. Hamilton and will write to you when he is in a position to make a definite engagement. If yon have anything to suggest as to the day Mr. Birrell will be glad if you will write to Sir James direct.

The correspondence showed that the Conference took place in the Castle, on Thursday, 23rd April. There were present Mr. Birrell, Sir James Dougherty, Dr. Hamilton, Professer Dill, Mr. Cooke, and Dr. Leebody. Mr. Birrell submitted a new clause which he proposed to introduce into the Charter of the Belfast University and this clause was accepted by the representatives of Queen's College, Belfast, and Magee College. The clause was as follows— The Literary and Scientific Department of Magee College, Londonderry, should be entitled to be affiliated to the University, subject to the provisions of this our Charter, and to the Statutes and Regulations of the University; and the Professors therein who should be engaged in teaching Matriculated Students of the University, in the approved courses of the University shall be members of the several faculties concerned with the subjects which they teach of the General Board of Studies and school, subject to the provisions of this our Charter, and to the Statutes and Regulations of the University, take part in the examinations held by the University; and the students of the Literary and Scientific Department of Magee College, when matriculated in the University, should enjoy all the privileges of students of the University. Provided always that the Literary and Scientific Department shall be entitled to affiliate so long only as it is open to students of all denominations, without distinction of religious belief. On 27th April, Dr. Leebody received from the Chief Secretary's office a printed copy of the Draft Charter of the proposed Belfast University, with this note appended to it— It should be observed that this Draft will require modification as a result of the arrangement come to at the meeting at the Castle on Thursday, 25th April, 1908. When the clause of the Bill relating to the affiliation of colleges was under discussion in Committee objections were made to the provision for the affiliation of Magee College being included in the Belfast Charter. On reading the report of the Committee proceedings in the Press, Dr. Leebody addressed the following letter to the Chief Secretary— I observe that a strong attempt is being made to induce you to withdraw your promise to provide for the affiliation of Magee College by Charter. It is not difficult to guess by whom this movement has been engineered. Nothing as they well know can prevent the affiliation of Maynooth except a direct prohibition of its affiliation by Charter, and this would involve the unanimous hostility of the hierarchy. Whether, therefore, the affiliation of Maynooth be provided for by Charter, or left to the decision of the University, makes no difference to Maynooth. Provision for affiliation by Charter is the only hope of justice for Magee. I trust you will pardon this letter, but the matter is one of vital importance to our college. No acknowledgment of this letter was received.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

, on a point of order, said that the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument was as to the question of affiliation of colleges. That did not arise on this Amendment which dealt with making certain colleges constituent colleges.

*Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid I do not quite appreciate the difference between constituent and affiliated colleges for the purpose of this Amendment.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that in the one case the University was to consist of constituent colleges, while in the other the University was to have the power of affiliating other colleges on conditions. The argument of the hon Gentleman was that Magee College ought to be one of the colleges so affiliated, but the Amendment before the House dealt with the question that it should be a constituent college.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must confine himself to the question that Magee College should be one of the constituent colleges.

*MR. BARRIE

said he desired to give his reason why Magee should be a constituent college rather than an affiliated college.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that the whole question of affiliation would be discussed later on another Amendment, and there was no use discussing it now.

*MR. BARRIE

said that he was almost finished. At the close of the Committee meeting on June 1st, the Chief Secretary was reported as having said:—"If Magee College does not want affiliation the matter is closed so far as I am concerned." On noticing this in the newspapers Dr. Leebody at once wired to the Chief Secretary that he was under an entire misapprehension as to the attitude of Magee College, and addressed to him the following letter on June 2nd— I was greatly concerned to see from the reports of yesterday's Committee meeting that you were under the impression that the authorities of Magee College did not wish the College to be affiliated by Chatter to the Belfast University. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course all its friends would prefer that it should be made a constituent college, but many, as well as myself, see the very serious difficulties in the way. All, however, recognise the vital importance of the boon you promised to Mr Cooke and me in Dublin being granted. We rely on your not withholding this. It would be a pity that a measure which it is to be hoped will be a great and lasting benefit to Ireland should needlessly involve the destruction of an institution which has been built up without State aid, and is certain to do good work if not crushed by the State. Failure to provide for our affiliation by charter will inflict on us a deadly blow, for reasons of which you are aware. Neither the telegram nor the letter of 2nd June had been acknowledged by the Chief Secretary, who was generally conspicuous for his courtesy. He expressed his personal regret that the head of Magee College should have been so treated. He was there as representing a constituency immediately adjoining the site of the college, and, seeing the Chief Secretary had shown no intention or desire to fulfil his promise from which he had never been absolved, to plead for this college. Entirely out of private resources provided by members of the Presbyterian Church, this college had done for forty years something for higher education in the North-West of Ireland in a manner which the Chief Secretary himself had acknowledged the value of. Subject to a life charge a very substantial provision would accrue to the college in a few years, and the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church were anxious to do everything in their power to promote higher education in that part of Ireland. The general assembly had recently offered that the teaching of theology should be removed from Magee College so that no restriction should stand in the way of the Chief Secretary acting generously by it. He held that the case for making Magee College a constituent college was incontestably strong, and if the Chief Secretary persisted in the course he apparently desired to take, he would, in the name of benefiting higher education in other parts of Ireland be striking a very serious blow at higher education in the North-West of Ireland. They must not forget that this was the only institution within 100 miles of Belfast and 160 miles of Dublin which was doing anything for the benefit of higher education in the whole of the North-West. The task of the Chief Secretary had been a more than usually difficult one. They knew the influences which had been tying his hands, but he asked him now even at the eleventh hour not to strike this unjust and undeserved blow at higher education in the North-West of Ireland.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 19, to leave out the words 'and Queen's College, Belfast.'"—(Mr. Hugh Barrie.)

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

MR. BIRRELL

said that his conscience was clear in this matter. During the prolonged discussions they had had he considered it his duty to see to it that Magee College was in no way injured or destroyed by the cessation of the Royal University. He had endeavoured in every way he possibly could to prevail upon Magee College to confine its claim to one of affiliation, and he was prepared to do all he could to secure that it got that affiliation. For that, purpose he got its principals, Dr. Hamilton and Dr. Boll, to meet him at Dublin Castle. They then put forward a demand that Magee College should be a constituent college. He said that could not possibly be. They also made a claim for further endowment, which he met with a forbidding attitude. Dr. Hamilton, to his surprise, produced from his pocket a written proposed of, his own, sug- gesting that Magee College should be affiliated by Charter—that was to say, that the discretion should no longer be vested in the Senate of the Belfast University, but that its affiliation should be put in the charter, and various other arrangements with regard to securing them the advantages of an examiner. Those gentlemen went away with that document and from that moment he had never received any assurance from them or from any person connected with the governing body of the Magee College that they stood by that—that they gave up their claim—a claim which he could not possibly accept—that they should be a constituent college, and they should be affiliated by charter, which he was prepared if he could do it to secure. From the very first they had assumed a hostile attitude towards the Bill. In the Committee a proposal was moved that they should be a constituent college, and the hon. Member himself said that they would never by any possibility agree to forego the claim of that college to be a constituent college. It was absolutely impossible for him to adhere to the bargain because the bargain was never struck. The offer was made to them, but they never accepted it. All through the attitude of Magee College put aside altogether the way out of the difficulty which Dr. Hamilton suggested at Dublin Castle, and they fought the Bill at every step, mostly on the right that Magee College should be a constituent college. Accordingly it became quite impossible for him, after they had been beaten on the point of becoming a constituent college, to fall back upon the arrangement which they had never agreed to that they should be affiliated by charter. This was a matter in which discretion should be given to the governing body of the University. He, therefore, considered himself relieved not from the bargain, because there never was a bargain, but from the proposals made by Dr. Hamilton. If the principal of Magee College had written to him saying that he withdrew his claim for the college to be made a constituent college, he would have supported at any cost the proposal that it should be affiliated by charter. But they never did. He did not know if the hon. Gentleman opposite was entitled at what he called the eleventh hour to make any proposal. The time had gone by and the opportunity had been lost, although he would do all he could to see that the claim of Magee College was fully and frankly considered by the Belfast Senate, and he could hardly doubt that Dr. Hamilton also would do his best to secure the recognition of Magee College, if it was brought up to the proper University standard and was a college where students might reside. To say that Magee College was entitled to complain of his not carrying out a bargain which they never accepted was, he thought, a little too much.

*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University)

hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment to a division. Everybody recognised that the work done by Magee College was good, but having regard to the number of students in attendance and to the fact that it had no facilities for science studies he did not think it had a claim to become a constituent college. He scarcely thought that the Chief Secretary was wise in entering into any arrangement with respect to the affiliation by charter of Magee College. He thought that the question should be left either to the statutory Commissioners, or after the termination of their labours to the Senate of the Belfast University. Having regard to the excellent work done by the Arts faculty of that college the affiliation of that faculty alone was likely to take place.

MR. BUTCHER

had considerable sympathy with Magee College in this matter, because he thought there had been some real misunderstanding between them and the Chief Secretary. At the same time, he did not think that Magee College could reasonably make a claim to become a constituent college. Until very recently Magee College was essentially a denominational body, and on one side was still a seminary for the training of Presbyterian ministers. They proposed to alter its trusts so as to detach its Art faculty from the denominational college, but the college was very small. It had only between 55 and 60 students, the greater number of whom were preparing for the ministry; there was only a very small residum of Art students who were not going in for the ministry: The chief claim of Magee College to receive any recognition under this Bill was the good work it had done for women's education in the North of Ireland. If they were to affiliate at all colleges of that type, then the Magee College would come in as an affiliated college.

*MR. BARRIE

said the Chief Secretary had asked if he was an accredited representative of Magee College. He desired to say that since he had received the letters from the President which he had quoted he considered he was. In the Committee he acted entirely as a private Member, There seemed to him to be no failure of acceptance on the part of the Magee College of the terms arranged with the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. BIRRELL

Then what right had they afterwards to demand to be made a constituent college?

*MR. BARRIE

They did not do so officially. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was hardly quite fair in saying what he did. It seemed to him it was the duty of the friends of Magee College to point out that they had serious cause of complaint regarding the way in which the Chief Secretary had carried out his part of the bargain. That bargain was duly made, and a distinct breach of faith had taken place. He would go further and say that nothing they had heard from the Chief Secretary gave any encouragement to the friends of Magee College. As Member for a constituency greatly interested in Magee College, he much regretted the manner in which the Chief Secretary had acted, and the gross injustice which had been perpetrated.

THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON (Londonderry)

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he could not see his way to making Magee College a constituent college of Belfast University, it could be affiliated by Charter.

MR. BIRRELL

I do not think I can.

THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON

said he had the copy of a letter from Dr. Leebody, of Magee College, dated 2nd June, and addressed to the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said he had received no communication from Magee College as to affiliation. This was the letter— I was greatly concerned to see from the reports of yesterday's committee meeting that you were under the impression that the authorities of Magee College did not wish the college to be affiliated by charter to the Belfast University. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course all its friends would prefer that it should be made a constituent college, but many, as well as myself, see the very serious difficulties in the way. All, however, recognise the vital importance of the boon you promised to Mr. Cooke and me in Dublin being granted. We rely on your not withholding this. It would be a pity that a measure which, it is to be hoped, will be a great and lasting benefit to Ireland, should needlessly involve the destruction of an institution which has been built up without State aid, and is certain to do good work if not crushed by the State. Failure to provide for our affiliation by charter will inflict upon us a deadly blow, for reasons of which you are aware.

MR. BIRRELL

said his position was this. If Magee College had accepted Dr. Hamilton's proposal, he would have striven by his own vote and support to have got Magee College affiliated by charter. He would certainly have done that, but then he had never had any assurance from the time of the meeting in Dublin Castle to the time of the letter of 2nd June, when the Committee stage had begun, that Magee accepted those terms. On the contrary, he had seen in the newspapers that they were still striving to become a constituent college, either of the new University or of Trinity College, Dublin, with whom they had some negotiations. Therefore, it was impossible for him while the Bill was going through Committee, and while he had all these difficulties to consider in relation to Maynooth and other places, to adhere to the bargain, unless he was satisfied that Magee accepted it. But that they had not done. The hon. Member had got up and said that Magee did not feel itself bound by the bargain, and claimed to be a constituent college.

*MR. BARRIE

said, in justice to himself, he ought to explain that he could not possibly have made the remark which the right hon. Gentleman attributed to him, because he had not been authorised to make it. What he had said was that he understood—and he was speaking as a private Member—that the offer had been made to affiliate, but he claimed that Magee should be made a constituent college.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not listen at this stage to the suggestion o that Magee College should now be affiliated by Charter. The feeling amongst all who knew anything at all about Magee College was one of friendliness, and he would be the last in the world to do anything injurious to that college. He thought the most Magee College could say was that they should be put on the same footing as every other college in Ireland outside the constituent colleges. If Magee was to be affiliated to the University by charter, it would be a fatal course to pursue, because naturally every other college in Ireland who thought they had a claim, would come forward and seek to put pressure on the right hon. Gentleman to affiliate them by charter. With regard to Maynooth, Magee, or any other college, the one ground which the right hon. Gentleman had taken was to leave the question to be decided by the Senate of the University, He hoped, therefore, under the circumstances, that the right hon. Gentleman would not dream of acceding at this stage to the proposal. When first it was brought forward, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had made a great mistake in making the offer which he did. He was now relieved from the consequences of that mistake, and he could leave Magee College, like every other college in Ireland, to be dealt with by the Senate of the University.

SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)

said that although this question was not one of supreme importance to the Bill, it was one of considerable importance to Magee College. He regretted himself that Magee College should have imagined that this question was going to be settled as a matter of bargain between this or that college and the Chief Secretary. He did not think that it mattered in the least now whether or not there had been a misunderstanding in Committee between the college and the right hon. Gentleman. He could not see what that had to do with the question. The sole question was whether it was right or not to make it a constituent college. Personally, looking at this Bill, he did not think that they ought to decide any of these points on small grounds. On the other hand, the Chief Secretary would not in the least blame Magee College for having done their best to be made a constituent college. They had fought it to the last. It was to Magee a much more important question than anything else. He thought they had been perfectly right to fight it out to the last, and he did not think that they could take what had occurred in Committee as any reason for saying that the time had now lapsed, and that they could not deal with it. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than to give that kind of answer to the college. Magee College was in very considerable difficulties; it had done a great work for a particular part of the community in the past; and he gathered from the Chief Secretary, he might be wrong, that at some stage of the proceedings he would have been willing to affiliate the college by charter to Belfast University. If he had been of that opinion why had he changed it, and why should he not attempt to do it now? He understood that the hon. Gentleman who had moved this Amendment, and the noble Lord who had supported it—both, of course, understood a great deal about the matter—were in a position to say that Magee College desired to be affiliated by charter. If that were so, then there should be some real answer, without these references to what had taken place in Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Irish Party had said that Magee College ought to be left in the same position as Maynooth. That sounded a very excellent argument to anybody who did not know the reality of the case, but they must look at the circumstances. Everybody knew that just as surely as the Bill passed, the Dublin University must necessarily affiliate Maynooth. Nobody for a moment could put forward any pretext for saying that it would not. Naturally Maynooth would be affiliated when there was power to affiliate in the new University. He did not in the least object, if it was desired by both parties that it should be done. But would anybody say that the circumstances were the same as regarded Magee College and Belfast University? It was exactly the other way. Everybody knew that if left alone Magee would not be affiliated. The Senate of the new Belfast University had not the least intention of affiliating Magee College. He had heard a good deal about it, and that was the actual state of affairs; therefore, there was no use in telling them that the two cases stood on the same lines. He had never been connected with Magee College, which was in a part of Ireland about which he did not profess to know a great deal. His acquaintance lay with a less law-abiding part of the country. But all along, in any observations which he had made on the Bill, he had expressed a wish that a settlement should be come to with as little friction, and leaving behind as little bad feeling as possible, giving to all parties in the matter a real good start. On these grounds he hoped that there would be some other answer than that which had already been put forward for refusing to have this college affiliated.

MR. BIRRELL

said that if he looked back to what had taken place on this subject, he found that the proposal for affiliation by charter had never been put forward on his part. It was a proposal which emanated, not from him, but from Dr. Hamilton. He knew that when they met round the table he had never any intention whatever of suggesting the affiliation of Magee by charter. It was not in his thoughts. Dr. Hamilton produced out of his pocket, rather to his surprise, a written document, to which, he was bound to say, the representatives of Magee, being more concerned to defend their case from becoming a constituent college, did not pay that close and particular attention that they might have done. They took it away, and were prepared to consider it. From that time forth until the letter referred to in June, and when the Committee had got into full existence, he heard nothing more from them. The difficulty was the course the debate took in Committee. It was perfectly plain that the Committee would not have consented, and he did not believe that the proposal for the affiliation of Magee College would have passed. He did not consider himself in any sense bound. Having regard to the course which Magee had followed, if they had withdrawn their opposition on all other grounds, he certainly should have felt himself bound to exercise his influence in favour of affiliation and would have voted for it. But what would have happened he did not know. He did not think it would have passed. The thing had, however, gone past the stage where it was any longer possible to go back on that position, and he had the satisfaction of thinking that Magee College might have put him into a different position, and forced him to take that course.

*MR. C. J. O'DONNELL

said the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had decided this question. He had told them that it was not the intention of the Senate of Belfast University to affiliate Magee College. [Cries of "No, no."] It was proposed to override the Senate. He did not believe that the House would sanction such interference.

Amendment negatived.

CAPTAIN CRAIG moved an Amendment providing that His Majesty may, if pleased to do so, by charter, found a new "undenominational" college to have its scat at Dublin. He said he wished to insert the word "undenominational" because they had had from time to time pledges given by the Government that no money voted by Parliament should be spent for denominational purposes. Although promises made by Ministers were binding on them they were not binding on those who came after them. Could anything be fairer than to ask the large body of Nonconformists in the House to erect an undenominational college in Dublin? It was fair and it accorded with the traditions of the great Liberal Party as pronounced prior to the last general election. The Chief Secretary and others had been attempting to legislate for education in England in the direction of undenominationalism, and he was now asking the great Liberal Party and the Nonconformist conscience to go with him into the lobby and vote for undenominationalism about which they shouted so loudly outside the House, and he was sure they would jump at this early opportunity of being able to vote for it.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 22, after the word 'new,' to insert the word 'undenominational.'"—(Captain Craig.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'undenominational' be there inserted."

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

suggested that it would be an improvement on the word "undenominational" if the hon. and gallant Member put in the word "un-Christian."

CAPTAIN CRAIG

I am afraid I could not give way in that matter. I prefer the word "undenominational."

MR. BIRRELL

said the wording of several of the clauses, and particularly of the very remarkable Clause 3, justified, in his opinion, the statement that this was as undenominational a University as any law could make any body of men undenominational. They were often told that these words counted for nothing, that it did not matter that they said anybody could go to the Universities, that nobody was to be met at their thresholds by any test requiring them to say what religion they belonged to or to produce a certificate of baptism, that it was no use to say that every prize, every exhibition, and every scholarship was open, that there were no restrictions of any kind, and that the governing body after the first five years were to be elected by professors and graduates. All that, in the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not worth the paper it was written on, and the University would be denominational. And yet now he, in rhetorical manner and in striking tones bade them put in. the word "undenominational," and then he said all would be well. He did not attach the importance to words which the hon. and gallant Gentleman did. But hon. Members could form their own opinion of this Bill, not from a word here or a word there, but from the general nature of its contents and the provisions they had inserted in it, and he did not think the addition of this word would be of any use whatever.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the right hon. Gentleman had indulged, as he was very fond of doing, in the very art which he criticised so strongly when anybody else ventured to follow in his footsteps. He had found great fault with his hon. and gallant friend for his rhetorical display, but the Chief Secretary was by no means unproficient in the art of rhetorical display and those who might be inclined harshly to criticise his action would say that rhetoric frequently took the place of argument. In his opinion, ninety-nine people out of 100 who knew anything of Ireland and of the question of higher education in Ireland believed that the ultimate result would be that these Universities would be very largely favoured in a denominational manner. The right hon. Gentleman's defence was that he had done everything already in the Bill to give these Universities an undenominational character. If that was his object and if that would be the result of the provisions of the Bill, why on earth did he refuse to accept one word which would make it perfectly clear, and that the intention of the Government was that not only should the Bill be drafted and carried through Parliament so as to make it undenominational, but that something more should be done, that every obstacle that Parliament could fairly put in the way of tuning this into a denominational measure should be put there. Surely that was not unfair if it really was the intention of the Government that this should be an undenominational University. He wondered at this persistent refusal to accept Amendments, the only object of which was to carry out what the Government were never tired of declaring was their intention.

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)

suggested that the word "untruthful" should be substituted for the word "undenominational." After listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down it was quite clear that in the opinion of everybody the word "undenominational" would be an untruthful description of the University, and he should vote against any attempt to make these Universities by phraseology what they were not going to be in practice. He thought it far better to take up a consistent attitude whichever side or the question their inclination might be on.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

said he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite. His hon. friend desired that the Bill should be an undenominational Bill, and hoped to effect that by introducing the word "undenominational" in the second clause. His hon. friend must know perfectly well that the introduction of the word "undenominational" would be only an expression of a pious intention—of his intention. But it was not the intention of the Government or of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and it was not his intention. He quite admitted that he did not like the Bill in its present form. His dislike to it was, put shortly, that he thought it fa too clerical. His objection was not that it was denominational. The whole object of the Bill was to provide education which would meet the requirements of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. What was the use of calling that anything but denominational, and what was the use of the Government coming forward and pointing to Clause 3 or Clause 4 and saying they did not mean to have a denominational Bill? If the Government did not mean to have a denominational Bill, they did not mean to have a Bill which would carry out the object of the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, who desired higher education to be given to Roman Catholics, two-thirds of the Irish people. It was only by making this a denominational University that they would attain that object. He did not mean by that, that they must have a system of tests or exclude Protestants or put all the disqualifications with which Clause 3 dealt. What he meant was that the intention of the Government from the beginning had plainly been to create a University which was denominational, and he suggested to his hon. and gallant friend that he should not press his Amendment, because he could not really conceive why they should put on the face of the Bill something so obviously mendacious as was implied, in the use of this word. If this was not a denominational Bill it had no raison d'etre, and to put "undenominational" in big characters in the Second clause was not to make it undenominational, but to make it hypocritical. If his hon. and gallant friend went to a division, which he hoped he would not, he should be compelled in the interests of veracity and sincerity to vote against him.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said he very much wished those who had repeatedly and emphatically declared that this Bill set up a denominational University in Ireland would take the trouble to define what they meant by denominational. The Universities would be no more denominational than those of Manchester, Liverpool, Oxford, Cambridge, or Edinburgh, and less denominational than Trinity College, Dublin. How could hon. Members, with any sense of justice or fair play, call this a denominational University, when they made no proposal to alter the constitution of Trinity College, which was far more denominational? Were the othre Universities denominational?

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

said the University of Liverpool would not admit theology within its walls.

MR. DILLON

said that the University set up under this Bill would be free. When the hon. Member opposite spoke of the Liverpool University did he know what the University of Dublin did at the present time? Was he aware that they had theology and theological professors who had the same standing as other professors? Did he know that they had a chapel in the University? Yet hon. Members got up and said that the Universities proposed to be set up under this Bill were denominational. He asked the hon. Member for the Morley division of Yorkshire, who opposed this Bill on its Second Reading, to explain what he meant by a denominational University, and he said he meant a University where the professors and students were overwhelmingly of one denomination. What University in the world could be free from that charge? He contended that the proposed Universities were no more denominational than any other University in this country, and they would be less denominational than the University of Edinburgh. The new Universities would be less denominational than the University of Dublin was at the present time, and it was not true to state that no scheme could be brought forward to meet the requirements of the Catholics of Ireland which was not based upon the denominational principle. It was true that the great majority of the governing body and professors might be Catholic, because the Bill was intended to serve the needs of a Catholic people. He hoped hon. Members would have the common fairness, before calling the new institutions in Ireland denominational, to define for the enlightenment of the public what they meant by denominational.

MR. HUTTON

said that having listened to all the demands made in years gone by by Catholics upon one Government and another, he could not understand when a Bill was brought forward to meet the demands of Catholics for a denominational University why it should be called undenominational. The hon. Member for East Mayo had said that it was not proposed to set up a denominational University and that it was not meant in that sense. If that was the case why were the Catholics dissatisfied with the present Queen's Colleges? If a college or University which was free and undenominational would content hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends, why could they not be content with the present Queen's Colleges in Galway and Cork, and with the opportunity of securing degrees through the Royal University? The hon. Member for East Mayo had asked him to define what he meant by a denominational University, and he had quoted him as stating that it meant a University where the majority of the professors and students belonged to one denomination. He doubted very much whether he ever said that. The hon. Member had said that the new University would not be so denominational in its character as Trinity College; but the Catholics objected to Trinity College because it was denominational, and that was why Catholic students did not frequent it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was going to supply three colleges in which Catholics would have no fear of meeting the Episcopalian or Presbyterian influence. The right hon. Gentleman had described this Bill as one which was trying to set up the lowest common denominator, but it seemed to him that he was going to set up three denominational Universities. He could quite understand the speech of the Loader of the Opposition and his intervention was not surprising, because the whole Tory Party were going to support an Amendment to create a great undenominational University. Under those circumstances he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman desired the withdrawal of this Amendment.

MR. GWYNN (Galway)

said that what they were asking for in Ireland was not a denominational, but a free University. They had been asked why they were not content with Queen's Colleges. They were discontented with those colleges because they had no freedom, because their professors were Crown nominees, and suffered under disabilities as Civil servants, and because the teaching in those colleges was restricted and hampered in a way which was unknown in any other University. If it were true that the University of Liverpool had debarred its professors from teaching theology, it was not a free University. The Irish Party had asked over and over again not for a Catholic University but for a national democratic University, and in this Bill there was the making of a free University, and for that reason they accepted it, English Liberals could label it denominational or not, as they liked. There was, however, one denominational feature in the Bill, and it was that a test was imposed upon the professors, and to that extent they did not possess unlimited freedom. What he meant was that there was a limitation imposed upon the freedom of the teachers, because it was suggested that their teaching should not offend religious susceptibilities, and in that sense it was a negative test. What did "undenominational" mean in Ireland? When hon. Members understood that they would understand the zeal of the Ulster Party for undenominationalism. The majority of the people of Ireland were Catholics, and when a Board was called undenominational it meant that it consisted of an equal number of Catholics and Protestants, and therefore it meant a strict religious test. It came to this, that the Protestant minority had guaranteed to them more than their fair proportion of jobs. That was the true account of the zeal for undenominationalism which had signalised the Liberal Party. For these reasons he would vote against the Amendment.

MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)

said it appeared to him that there was a test in this matter which was worth considering. What was Oxford University fifty years ago? He thought there was only one reply. It was a thoroughly denominational University. Since the abolition of tests it had become undenominational. Only half a century ago Oxford University was fettered by tests, and it was proposed to set up these new Universities in Ireland unfettered by denominational tests such as had been known in days gone by. In taking that course they were keeping to the new model and not the old.

*SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.)

said he served on the Committee upstairs on this Bill, and, so far as he could, he had worked for the establishment in Ireland of a University which would be compatible with what was called an undenominational settlement of this question. He did not think it very much mattered whether the word "undenominational" was inserted here or not. The question was not what they called it, but what they were going to make it. He was bound to confess that during the progress of the Bill through Committee it appeared to him the Bill had suffered in its title to be regarded as undenominational, because amongst other things an addition was made to Clause 3 whereby the prohibition of tests was not to apply to theological professors. Allusion has been made by the hon. Member for East Mayo to the University of Liverpool, and other recently created Universities. The question he said was not so much whether this new University was denominational or undenominational, but whether it was as undenominational as some of the new Universities in the north of England. The Charter of Liverpool University contained the following— It is a, fundamental condition of the constitution of the University that no religions test shall be imposed upon any person in order to entitle him to be admitted as a member, professor, teacher, or student of the University, or to hold office therein, or to graduate thereat, or to hold any advantage or privilege thereof, and that no theological teaching shall be given by or under the authority of the University. Clearly, therefore, the proposed new University in Dublin differed to some extent from the model of the University of Liverpool. It also differed from the University of Manchester. The University of London was the only one in the United Kingdom which owed its constitution, entirely to Act of Parliament. The Act laid down that— No religious test shall be adopted or imposed, and no applicant for a University appointment shall be at any disadvantage on the ground of religious opinions. There was no reservation in the Act in regard to the appointment of theological professors. The extent to which the prohibition of tests was removed in the case of the Irish Universities in regard to theological professors was not in accordance with the undenominational character of the Universities which had received their Charters or had been created by Act of Parliament in recent years. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would be prepared to remove that objection to the measure. The more they tried to make the Universities free, democratic and undenominational the more likely they were to be acceptable to the Irish people.

*MR. C. J. O'DONNELL

objected to breaking up the young men of Ireland into three sectarian groups. Such a policy was un-national, and he feared this Bill would do more injury to Home Rule than anything which had ever occurred in Ireland.

*MR. SPEAKER

It is really not necessary to discuss the whole Bill on this Amendment. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.

*MR. C. J. O'DONNELL

said he had no wish to transgress against that ruling, but he was merely replying to statements which had been made in course of the discussion.

MR. MOORE

said that many hon. Members had treated this as merely a question of description, and had used the argument that it made very little difference whether they applied a particular name to a particular University or not. The majority of hon. Members appeared to admit, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for East Mayo had said, that whatever they called the new University, the fact was that it would be what the Chief Secretary was most anxious to disavow, namely, a real denominational University. It was not a mere matter of description, for this reason. It was not like Oxford or Cambridge, supported entirely from private endowments. It was a University for which that House was to find the money, and it would be liable to the ordinary control of the Courts in Ireland with respect to the misapplication of funds. If the Bill contained a statement that a college was undenominational, and it was found that funds voted by that House were being applied to denominational purposes, that would at once give groundwork for the intervention of the Court of Chancery by injunction or otherwise to restrain such application of the money. That could not be done unless it was the intention of the Bill to make the University undenominational. That was why he attached a great deal of value to the Amendment proposed by his hon. and gallant friend. He thought that all those who were interested in seeing that the money was applied to the needs of the new University and in accordance with the feelings and wishes of the people, and who did not wish to see clericalism triumphant, should support the Amendment.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

said that he attached so much importance to the Amendment that he would be obliged to go to a division. He could not see why anyone who desired the establishment of an undenominational University in Dublin should have the slightest hesitation in voting for the Amendment. He understood that the hon. Member for East Mayo looked upon the new University as undenominational, and therefore be hoped to find him in the same lobby as himself. He thought they must have consistency somewhere. If the House was to vote money on the distinct understanding that not a penny of it was to go to denominationalism, let them sack up that view in the division lobby, and say that the Bill would be made, as far as possible, undenominational.

*MR. MASSIE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)

said that the outcome of this part of the debate seemed to him to be that denominationalism or undenominationalism was a question of management. If a University was managed by Protestants, then it might be undenominational; if it was managed by Catholics, then it could not be. The logical issue of this attitude of mind was that, if every man in Ireland was a Catholic, then it would be wrong to give Ireland any University at all. If a University was to be suited to the population, it must be managed by the population, or it would not be democratic. The popula-

tion of Ireland being in its large majority Catholic, one University at least should be managed by Catholics. If a Catholic country was to have a University, then the University constituted by the Bill, if not absolutely undenominational, was as undenominational as an Act of Parliament could make it. This was the intention of the Government, and as to the particular Amendment, it did not matter so much what they called the University, as whether the University was likely to turn out what the Government intended it to be.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 32; Noes, 273. (Division List No. 215.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F	Hamilton, Marquess of	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hill, Sir Clement	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Clark, George Smith	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Thornton, Percy M.
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Valentia, Viscount
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	M'Arthur, Charles	Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n
Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Moore, William
Fell, Arthur	Morrison-Bell, Captain	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Charles Craig.
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Nield, Herbert
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Oddy, John James
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Dalziel, James Henry
Acland, Francis Dyke	Burke, E. Haviland-	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Delany, William
Ambrose, Robert	Butcher, Samuel Henry	Devlin, Joseph
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Byles, William Pollard	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.
Ashley, W. W.	Cameron, Robert	Dillon, John
Balcarres, Lord	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Donelan, Captain A.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Duckworth, James
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Cawley, Sir Frederick	Duffy, William J.
Barnard, E. B.	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness
Barnes, G. N.	Cecil Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Chance, Frederick William	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Beale, W. P.	Cheetham, John Frederick	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Beck, A. Cecil	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Erskine, David C.
Bell, Richard	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Bellairs, Carlyon	Clancy, John Joseph	Esslemont, George Birnie
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.	Cleland, J. W.	Evans, Sir Samuel T.
Bennett, E. N.	Clough, Willian	Everett, R. Lacey
Berridge, T. H. D.	Clynes, J. R.	Farrell, James Patrick
Bertram, Julius	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Fenwick, Charles
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W	Ferens, T. R.
Boland, John	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Brace, William	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Ffrench, Peter
Bramsdon, T. A.	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Field, William
Branch, James	Cowan, W. H.	Findlay, Alexander
Brigg, John	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Flynn, James Christopher
Brodie, H. C.	Crean, Eugene	Fuller, John Michael F.
Brooke, Stopford	Crooks, William	Fullerton, Hugh
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Cullinan, J.	Gill, A. H.
Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire	Curran, Peter Francis	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.
Glendinning, R. G.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Russell T. W.
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)	M'Micking, Major G.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Griffiths, Ellis J.	Marnham, F. J.	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Meagher, Michael	Seaverns, J. H.
Halpin, J.	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.	Seddon, J.
Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale	Menzies, Walter	Seely, Colonel
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose	Mooney, J. J.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Morse, L. L.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Harrington, Timothy	Murnaghan, George	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Haworth, Arthur A.	Myer, Horatio	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Hayden, John Patrick	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Napier, T. B.	Snowden, P.
Hazelton, Richard	Nicholson, Charles N. (D'ncast'r	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Healy, Timothy Michael	Nolan, Joseph	Steadman, W. C.
Hemmerde, Edward George	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Henry, Charles S.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Nuttall, Harry	Summerbell, T.
Higham, John Sharp	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Hobart, Sir Robert	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	O'Brien, William (Cork)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Hogan, Michael	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Tomkinson, James
Horniman, Emslie John	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Doherty, Philip	Toulmin, George
Hudson, Walter	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hyde, Clarendon	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Verney, F. W.
Idris, T. H. W.	O'Dowd, John	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N	Walsh, Stephen
Jackson, R. S.	O'Malley, William	Walters, John Tudor
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Walton, Joseph
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Parker, James (Halifax)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Joyce, Michael	Partington, Oswald	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n
Kavanagh, Walter M.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Wardle, George J.
Kearley, Sir Hudson E.	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Percy, Earl	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Kettle, Thomas Michael	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Waterlow, D. S.
Kilbride, Denis	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Whitbread, Howard
Laidlaw, Robert	Power, Patrick Joseph	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Lamont, Norman	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Lane-Fox, G. R.	Radford, G. H.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Raphael, Herbert H.	White, John Henry (Halifax)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Lehmann, R. C.	Reddy, M.	Wiles, Thomas
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lewis, John Herbert	Redmond, William (Clare)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th	Williamson, A.
Lundon, W.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Wills, Arthur Walters
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Lyell, Charles Henry	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Lynch, H. B.	Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs	Robinson, S.	Young, Samuel
Mackarness, Frederic C.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Yoxall, James Henry
Maclean, Donald	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Roche, Augustine (Cork)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Roche, John (Galway, East)
MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.	Roe, Sir Thomas
M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
M'Killop, W.	Rowlands, J.

CAPTAIN CRAIG moved an Amendment to provide that the governing body of the new college to be established in Dublin should be constituted of laymen. On looking through the Charter it appeared to him that there were far too many rev. gentlemen upon the governing body, and a limit should be put on that somewhere. Hon. Members below the gangway said that this was a democratic Bill, but he would like to know where there was any more autocratic body in the whole world than the Church to which they belonged. Were those hon. Members going to maintain the same position they had done in Committee upstairs? The hon. Member for Mayo there stated that he himself had felt the pressure which was brought to bear upon him by the Church to which he belonged, and that he was not able to take the Arts course in the college at his own home, and that all he could do was to join the college for the sake of seeing the books in the library. That was an intolerable state of affairs. Of course, he quite understood that the hon. Member for East Tyrone would be one of those mentioned in the schedule as belonging to the governing body, and that he would like to have as many as possible of his own clerical friends with him.

*MR. KETTLE

said that he had suggested that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should try to have the governing body composed of undenominational laymen.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

said that as the charter at present stood there would be six clerygmen in connection with the governing body of the college, and he did not quite know the necessity there was for them at all. He was not objecting in any sense of the word to Roman Catholics being properly educated. All that he said was that they should be kept as far as possible from the clerical element, and that the University should be run by laymen. It was evident that, although the Bill was claimed to be undenominational it was being made as denominational as could be—undenominational being meant, for consumption outside.

*MR. SPEAKER

said that the hon. Member was replying on the whole of the debate, but must confine himself to the Amendment.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

said he was sorry, but he felt so very strongly on the Bill that he had been carried away. He hoped that the House, even at the last moment, would say that, the governing body of this new college in Dublin should be composed of laymen. There were many good Roman Catholic laymen in Ireland; he had had many good friends amongst them; and there was no reason why Roman Catholic laymen should not manage the college, just as much as the University. He would trust these men if the Government would let them have a trial; and the Liberal Party would never regret it. He begged to move.

MR. LONSDALE (Armagh, Mid)

seconded the, Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 25, after the word 'constituted,' to insert the words 'of laymen,'"—(Captain Craig.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'of laymen' be there inserted."

MR. MOORE

said that this was a somewhat similar Amendment to that dealing with the governing body of the University which had been debated at an earlier stage, and he did not feel at liberty to repeat any of the arguments he had used on that Amendment. But it was their duty at every stage to enter a protest against the provisions in the Bill which left the governing body, either of the University or of the college, at the mercy of a potential majority of clerics as opposed, to laymen. The Amendment of his hon. and gallant friend was simply a struggle for supremacy between the lay and the clerical element, and he was sure that if the party whip were taken off, the House would decide that laymen, as men of the world, should have control of the college. If his hon. and gallant friend went to a division he would vote with him as a protest against the Bill as it was drawn, which allowed the clerical element to predominate.

*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS

said he desired to dissociate himself from all the attempts that were being made to disqualify the clergy from taking part in the government of the Universities.

Amendment negatived.

*MR. BUTCHER

said the object of the Amendment he now proposed and of the consequential Amendment lower down on the Paper was to get the constitution of the governing bodies of the three constituent colleges of the University of Dublin out of the charter into the Bill. Already the Bill contained the constitution of the governing bodies of the two Universities, and surely it was equally important that they should be able to debate in the House the constitution of the governing bodies of the three constituent colleges of the new University at Dublin. He would remind the House that these colleges would exercise a very powerful influence on the University itself. No less than seventeen of the members of the governing body of the University of Dublin were to be appointed by the constituent colleges of Dublin, Cork, and Galway. More than half the non-co-opted members of the Senate of the new University were appointed by the governing bodies of these three constituent colleges. It was therefore perfectly plain that these colleges would have a vital influence on the policy and government of the new University as a whole. Moreover, it must be remembered that these colleges virtually appointed their own professors, for they selected three names to be submitted to the Senate. He would not now go into the detailed differences between the schedule he had put down as an Amendment and the schedule of the Bill. He would only say that the main difference, almost the only difference, between them lay in the representation they respectively proposed to give to the municipal and county bodies. In the case of the college at Dublin, out of thirty four members the charter proposed to give ten representatives to local bodies. Out of the twenty-eight for the College of Cork these were given eight, and in the case of the College of Galway out of twenty-six seven were to be representatives of local bodies. If the academic element were compared with the local or civic element, it would be found that in the governing body of the college at Dublin the academic element, including the President, the persons nominated by the Senate, the representatives of professors and graduates, amounted to sixteen, and that the civic or local element numbered ten. In Cork the academic element was sixteen and the civic eight; in Galway the academic element was twelve and the civic seven. It was right, he thought, to stimulate local interest and generosity by putting some representatives on the governing bodies of these constituent colleges. But it was obvious that the proportion in the charters overdid the representation of the civic element; nobody would maintain for a moment that members of the I county councils of Ireland were persons to whom should be entrusted the difficult duty of choosing candidates for various professorial chairs. It might of course be urged that the local element was not in the majority, but when it came to a divided vote it was perfectly clear that so large a representation as ten representatives of one particular interest might turn the scale, with the result that the best men would not be elected, but the second or third best. Without going further into details he asked the Chief Secretary to recognise the great importance of having the bodies constituted in such a way that the colleges themselves would be academic in principle and in policy. Edinburgh University was an instance of what he had in mind. For some centuries the College of Edinburgh, founded by the city, was governed by the town. It was only within comparatively recent years that it became an entirely independent and self-governing university. If ever there was a case in which, both from its history, from the generosity shown by the citizens, and from the interest taken in that University by the neighbouring counties, local representation was right and necessary, it was the case, of Edinburgh. But how did it stand? The governing body of the University of Edinburgh contained only one representative of the civic element in the Lord Provost. His proposal was that each of the governing bodies in Ireland should have at lease two representatives of the civic element in place of ten, eight and seven which were given them by the charter.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS

formally seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 26, to leave out the word 'charter,' and to insert the words 'Schedule to this Act entitled, "Constitution of Governing Bodies of Constituent Colleges."'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

Question proposed, "that the word 'charter' stand part."

MR. BIRRELL

said the hon Member's point seemed to be two-fold, viz., that the governing bodies of these colleges should be inserted in the Act, and that the bodies as they appeared in the charter were unsatisfactory. The reason he was not disposed to put the governing bodies in the Act was that he thought it was best to proceed experimentally with regard to them and see how far they worked well. The bodies as constituted in the charters contained a liberal proportion of the civic element which he was anxious indeed to encourage. He would be very sorry to see the proposed limit restricting the civic element, or to see his own more liberal measure stereotyped into an Act of Parliament. If that were done it would require another Act of Parliament to modify or alter it. It was much preferable to proceed experimentally by charter which could be modified. The bodies as constituted by the charters had been known for some time and any alteration they had undergone had been in the direction of increasing the academic representation. He took the College of Dublin. What the hon. Gentleman had said was true. The body consisted of twenty purely academic persons. The hon. Gentleman asked what right they had to include four Crown nominees as academic persons. The Crown, in exercising its rights, would see to it that the representatives it selected were persons of academic character and who would give academic weight to the governing body. It was not likely that the Crown would go into the highways and byways and select county councillors and other persons of whom the hon. Gentleman seemed to be a little suspicious. He imagined that the governing body would be very careful in exercising its right of co-option to choose persons of academic character. At any rate, leaving them out of the question, they had twenty academic persons as against ten civic persons. He attached very great importance in Ireland to enlisting the interest and support of the civic authorities. It had become very necessary in England in the administration of endowed schools and the like. People were no longer content to stand by—great municipalities and authorities—and see old grammar schools and other places where the children of their towns were educated entirely arranged by academic persons without civic authority or control. He had very frequently had to deal with that question, and experience had shown that the introduction of a liberal number of civic people into the governing bodies of secondary schools and colleges did a great deal of good. He did not think the case of Edinburgh was exactly in point. The University of Edinburgh was celebrated, ancient, and known throughout Europe. It did not require to be nursed and protected by the Lord Provost and Corporation, and, therefore, it might very well be that the City of Edinburgh was content to allow its civic representation on the governing body of that great University to be confined to the Lord Provost. But this was a very different affair. Here they had a struggling and new university, not only poor in its financial resources, but poor having regard to the character of the young men and women who were to attend it. They would require all the support they could get from bursaries and the like, and from the rates; and he thought it would be very foolish indeed in this great matter to be slow to recognise civic authority. He quite agreed that in the recent observations which he made he had not in his mind at the moment the proportion which would exist between the academically selected body and the civic authorities. He knew that civic authorities would have to be there in a limited form in the proposed schedule, but he had not these particular figures in his mind. He thought, however, on the whole that twenty academic persons as against ton civic persons was a fair proportion. He did not pretend to have the intimate acquaintance with Ireland which belonged to people born and bred there, but really he had sufficient confidence in their good sense and in the good sense of the civic authorities to imagine that they would not be hostile or interfere with the election of professors of Greek, of languages, or of philosophy; he did not think that they would seek to thrust some one man among the three to be selected by the governing body, and to be adjudicated upon by the supreme Senate of the federated Universities. In regard to a professor of agriculture they might have ideas of their own, and he dared say that they were entitled to have ideas of their own on that subject. But that was not a very difficult subject to determine. Therefore, he did not think it ought to be brought up against these persons that they would seek to adjudicate on the appointment of professors. He thought that their influence could be usefully employed for the advantage of the college, and he did not suppose for a moment that they would ever interfere in the selection of professors of Greek, languages, or philosophy. If they did they were in a permanent minority, and it might he relied upon that those who were elected by the academic council to the colleges and the Universities were as much likely to be present at the selection as were the members representing the county councils. At all events, he was willing to give the matter a fair trial. They had all said that the thing was to be democratic. He did not know exactly what it meant in all its branches, but it certainly did mean that the governing body should be wisely selected, and should be based not merely on the academic side, but also upon the popular and civic side of the locality where the University was situate. He was, therefore, very much disposed, although he did not like the part of haggling over one portion more than another, to think the final proportion—a body of thirty-four for Dublin, would be better than his hon. friend's schedule, which would reduce the thirty-four to twenty-five, and would only allow the civic authorities to have two representatives—the Lord Mayor of the City of Dublin, and a person representing the council. There would be only two civic representatives out of a body of thirty-four. He thought, on the whole, it would be better to have the larger body of thirty-four, in which there would be an enormous majority on the academic side. He thought eight or ten representatives of the civic authorities was better than two, which alone the hon. Member would give them. In the same way at Cork, he proposed to have a body of twenty-eight, whereas the hon. Member proposed to have one of twenty-three.

MR. BUTCHER

It is twenty-four. That is a mistake.

MR. BIRRELL

said the hon. Gentleman confined the civic authority to the Lord Mayor or other person representing the County Council of Cork, whereas he had himself gone carefully into this matter in conjunction with the hon. Member for Cork, and the President, who attached the very greatest importance to the cooperation of the Lord Mayor of Cork, the Mayor of Limerick, the Mayor of Waterford, and the chairmen or other persons representing the County Councils of Cork, Waterford, Kerry, and Limerick. They wanted to enlist the support of those persons in order that the people in those districts might feel that they had a voice in the representation. He thought, therefore, that it was better to have the larger body of twenty-eight rather than his hon. friend's smaller body of twenty-four, and instead of having two they would have eight representatives of civic authorities. Galway was a very difficult case indeed. The fortunes of that college largely depended upon their being able to enlist the interest of the locality round about Roscommon, Sligo, and other towns. Unless they could make these representative bodies of the localities feel that they had a University within reach of Galway he was afraid the institution might have a stiff time before it, whereas, if they really could under the new constitution make the people in all these towns surrounding Galway feel that they had a University of their own the institution would feel a beneficial effect. To do that it would be better to have twenty-six, including seven civic representatives. After all, there again the civic representatives would be in a permanent minority. On the whole, therefore, he thought they were bound to give those places a chance, and for his part he would not be in the least frightened of their behaving in an unreasonable manner, or interfering with matters in regard to which they obviously did not possess the necessary knowledge. He thought, on the other hand, they would take a great part in the future development of the colleges. He would not care to say that these figures, made after elaborate consultation and enormous correspondence, were final. He preferred to leave it to experiment, and after a few years they might possibly make some alteration in the direction suggested by the hon. Member. He could not accept the Amendment.

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN (Cork)

said he was glad to hear the Chief Secretary's reply to the hon. Gentleman, who, he hoped, would not further press his Amendment. Though the hon. Member was a distinguished and worthy academic authority, yet he was perhaps not so well acquainted as men of the world with all the necessities of the case. The hon. Gentleman had very frankly admitted that his object was to cut down the popular representation to the minimum and to flood the governing bodies with professorial and academic dignities. To do that would, in his opinion, destroy one of the healthiest principles of this Bill, which was that these Universities were to be the people's Universities, to which representatives of the people were expected to contribute, and in whose management consequently the representatives of the people would be entitled to have a voice. He did not share the alarm of the hon. Gentleman that the academic element on those governing bodies would be weakened. He thought the danger was rather the other way. It might be too predominant, and it might be that these academic personages would fall into a condition of sleepiness and inertia unless they had a healthy public opinion behind them. He thought the Chief Secretary was absolutely right in anticipating that these terrible lord mayors and county councillors would really have no ambition to teach Greek or physical science. So far as Cork College was concerned, at all events, he thought they would rather act in the direction followed by Birmingham University of encouraging local initiative, with a view to the development of special local industries and the practical moans of life. With that object, in his opinion, the presence on these head bodies of local business men of capacity, skilled agriculturists, and others, was quite as essential an ingredient of success as the presence of more learned professors would be. The Chief Secretary had pointed out that the effect of this consequential Amendment would be that outside Cork no corporation or county council would have any representation whatever, and the result would be to deprive Cork of any reasonable claim it might have for the assistance of other counties. There was really no earthly reason that he could understand why the desire of these popular bodies to give a helping hand to the great work of Cork College should be deliberately cut out. In every matter connected with the Bill they would really have to trust people, and the more influence théy gave to sturdy democratic opinion the surer they might be of the success of these Universities in an academic and every other way.

*MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said he give this proposal his hearty support. The position which the Chief Secretary had taken up was to a very large extent different from that which he took up on the First Reading. He said then, speaking, it was true of the Senate of the Universities, and not of the governing bodies of the colleges, that the Senates would be academically elected bodies, and anybody who had the honour of finding himself a member thereafter of either of these Senates would be so because he had received the votes of the professors and graduates of the Universities. The same idea ran through his whole speech when dealing with the question of the governing bodies, and he said it was thought three years would be sufficient as the period of nomination, and after these three years they also would be academically elected bodies. The impression left on his mind from the Chief Secretary's speech was totally different from the impression which he obtained from reading the Charter himself. The case of the Dublin college was nearer perfection than either of the other two, although it was still a long way from perfection, but he found that taking those who were nominated by the Crown as academic members, which of course did not necessarily follow, there were on a board of thirty-four fourteen members who were not academic members. The duties which fell on the governing body of a college were purely academic duties, so technical that a person who had not gone through a University himself would be very ill-adapted to carry them out. In the case of Galway and Cork the proportion was still more gross. In the case of Cork they had twelve unacademic members of the governing body, and sixteen academic members. In that case they were almost approaching the point where the unacademic equalled the academic members. In the case of Galway it was even worse. There was an assortment of ten persons drawn from counties all around Galway, to sixteen academically appointed members. The Chief Secretary gave it as a reason for the appointment of these non-academic members that without interesting the counties the Universities would be a failure. He begged to differ altogether on that point. If the Universities could only be made a success by allowing the counties of Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo, and Clare as well as Galway, to elect representatives to the governing body of the colleges, and if it was necessary to resort to these means of exciting public interest in the college, it was not likely to be a success under any circumstances. On the contrary, just as he believed Queen's College, Galway, would have been a success long ago had it not been for the ban of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and would at present be a thriving and a highly useful institution, so would the new college which had the approval of the hierarchy be a success so far as numbers were concerned. The same thing applied to Cork. He had not the slightest doubt that under the new scheme proposed by the Bill, both Galway and Cork, when the edict went forth that Roman Catholics might make use of them, would be filled in a very short time. It was a great deal better, in his view, that purely academic and purely technical University affairs connected with the colleges should be left in the hands of men who had themselves gone through a University, and who knew something about its management. Such persons were obviously better fitted to manage the University than persons who would be sent there by various municipal and county authorities outside. He had had some small experience in the management of a hospital and he was on the governing body of a large hospital in Belfast, and his experience there was that on technical questions the whole tendency was to leave the settlement in the hands of those members of the governing body who happened to be doctors. The same thing would happen in this case, and the locally elected members of the governing body would have to leave the management of purely technical affairs to the academic part of the council, and it would be much better that local representation should be minimised as much as possible. He had also found that the professional part of the governing body in the case of the hospital he had spoken of was always very much less liable to be influenced by outside pressure. If a new doctor was to be appointed very great pressure was brought to bear on the members of the governing body who were not professional men. That pressure was much more seldom brought to bear on the doctors, and even if it was they were always inclined to look at the thing much more from a purely professional point of view than were the outside members of the governing body, and precisely the same thing would happen in the case of the governing bodies of the colleges. In Galway he could quite imagine, when the question came up of the appointment of a professor, there would be an enormous number of outsiders who really knew very little about the qualifications of the applicants, and he was quite sure these various representatives in the seven or eight counties would be liable to a very great deal of pressure, and the chances of the wrong man being elected would be very much greater in the case of a body formed as it was under the Chief Secretary's scheme than it would be under the scheme which his hon. friend proposed. This was a purely technical point, into which the question of denominationalism or undenominationalism did not enter very much, but he thought it a most important one, and he hoped the House would very seriously consider it before they rejected the proposal.

MR. MOORE

said they had heard a great deal in the course of the argument about the desirability of giving these civic bodies representation. He thought as much interest would be taken by local people in the local University whether members of the county councils were on the governing body or not. All this proceeded from the mistaken application of the theory that where there was a contribution coming from a local body, the local body was entitled to representation. But it was not suggested here that there was any contribution from local bodies, and they had no right to be represented. If they put people who were themselves elected into a position of responsibility on the governing bodies, they would be exposing those people to very severe pressure from their own electors. He did not think the members would value it at all. They knew very well in local government administration the intense pressure, in some cases bribery, he was sorry to say, especially in the south and west of Ireland. [Cries of "No."] It was quite easy to say "No," but cases were in the public knowledge—charges, at any rate, had been made and tried. If this happened in local administration, he fancied the local administrators who were placed on these bodies would be exposed to very much the same influences, and he did not think it was to their good, or that it added anything to the stability of the University. They would canvass for the election of professors just as they would for the appointment of a charwoman or a gate porter. But there were many more important points to deal with. The proposal in the Bill was that the entire constitution of the governing body of the three local colleges was to be carried out by charter. As a matter of fact they knew that a charter was the act of the Sovereign and it was only by the courtesy of the Chief Secretary that they had been able to see the draft charter. The House had no power to control the issue to-morrow of another revised draft charter in entirely different terms. When these colleges had been in existence six months and the money had been voted, there was nothing to prevent another charter being issued, and the House would have no control whatsoever over the governing bodies of those colleges, and the whole face of their creation could be changed without the intervention of the House. Surely this was a case in which it was both possible and desirable that the constitution of the governing bodies should be laid down by statute. The Bill itself contained the constitution of the governing bodies of the Universities. That was provided for by statute, and when the Chief Secretary said that he did not want a stereotyped form that was his way of altering by charter what did not suit him. He thought that argument would apply equally to creating the governing body of the University by charter, but the right hon. Gentleman had not done that and he could not see any reason why the constitution of the colleges should not be controlled by the House. Why was it not done in this case, because that was the popular tendency? London University was controlled by Act of Parliament, and surely it was right that where Parliament voted money it should impose conditions which could only be altered by the consent of Parliament. Notwithstanding this the Chief Secretary said that he was not going to put the constitution of these colleges into a Bill on account of the inconvenience of having them altered by Parliament. The moment he said that he gave the whole of his case away. Those who were jealous of the privileges of the House ought to insist that the rights and the power to control the collges now being created should be protected in. this way. He thought his hon. friend had done a valuable service in drawing the attention of the House to this kind of interference by charter, because they were losing by this procedure all control of the governing bodies of these three colleges. Unless some reason was given for differentiating the treatment between the Universities and these three colleges, he hoped the House in defence of its own interests and in accordance with more recent developments would vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

thought this was a matter of very great importance and he regretted that the Chief Secretary had been obliged to leave the House. The question was not whether the schedule of his hon. friend or that of the Chief Secretary was the better. Local authorities played a large part in the schedules of the Chief Secretary, and he would be the last person to contest the right of local authorities to be represented on the governing bodies and institutions to which they made contributions or in which they were necessarily locally interested. He knew the value of the assistance which local authorities had given in education in this country too well to doubt that in Ireland they would be efficient and desirous of promoting education in the areas over which they presided. He did not wish to raise any question of the merits of these two governing bodies proposed respectively by the Chief Secretary and the Member for Cambridge University. What he wished was to impress upon the House that after a large sum of money had been allocated by Parliament, it was not right that the House should be debarred from considering what was to be the constitution of the bodies by whom the money was going to be spent. It seemed to him that to leave this matter to be dealt with by charter was quite contrary to the spirit in which they had been in the habit of dealing with such matters. He was not speaking with any hostility to the measure before them, and there was no question of denominationalism or undenominationalism in the matter. He simply wanted to insist upon the right of the House of Commons to determine the constitution of bodies which were going to spend a large sum of public money, and as he had not heard a single argument against that point from the other side he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend.

*MR. BUTCHER

said he would like to reply to one or two of the speeches. The Chief Secretary had said that the constitution of these colleges was entirely experimental and, therefore, ought to be put in the charter rather than in the Act. But if the constitution of the colleges was experimental, so, too, was the constitution of the Universities, and as had already been pointed out, the Chief Secretary had not ventured on that account to withdraw the constitution of the two Universities from discussion in the House. They all held together, those five bodies, the two Universities, and the three constituent colleges. In comparing the different elements which went to form these governing bodies of the colleges it had been assumed that the nominees of the Crown should be regarded as an academic clement. Looking at the history of appointments in Ireland he was not quite able to assume that the nominees of the Crown would be of that character. In Committee, he had moved to reduce the nominees of the Crown, but he did not wish to have instead a preponderating element of councillors. At the same time let it be understood that he was not against a mixed constitution, for he desired that there should be others than academic persons on those bodies. He had seen himself in the practical working of such governing bodies great advantage come from the introduction into academic bodies of men of business with civic experience, in close touch with the communities they represented. Therefore, he desired that this element should be represented only not in any undue proportion. The hon. Member for Cork had spoken of the advantage that came from bringing a whiff or breach of public air into those closer academic bodies and he quite agreed with him. If he were dealing only with the College of Cork he would be strongly tempted to leave the constitution as it was, because he had already seen partly in the munificent action of the hon. Member for Cork himself and in the keen interest which a great many persons in Cork had taken in this question a pledge and promise that popular representation in Cork would not be tempted to abuse its powers. But they were now laying down a constitution which was to last for years, and be applicable to all the Colleges. The Chief Secretary had said that he had perfect confidence that the county councils of Ireland would not interfere with patronage; but if that was so it would be the very first instance in which the county councils had refrained from exercising the privilege. If there was one thing above another that brought together county councillors from the remotest parts of the country it was the exercise of patronage. He did not suggest that they would have some malign influence over the college in their own neighbourhood; but whatever they knew about other things, they did not know much about the government and policy of Universities. They might or might not have a political bias. He did not rest it on that, but on the fact that though it was wise to excite their interest and elicit their generosity, it was not wise to put so much power in their hands. To sum it all up, his one object in this Amendment, as in the others that he had put down, was to start these Universities and colleges on lines that would ensure a successful future. In order to do that, his confident belief was that they should be kept free as far as possible from all religious and political outside influences, and that the University element, as distinct from the civic element, ought largely to preponderate in the government.

MR. BIRRELL

agreed that the problem was to combine the academic and civic elements. No University had been established of late years on any other principle than that of invoking the aid of the locality were it was situated, and anybody who knew anything of the work of primary or secondary education knew that it was hopeless to establish a University without the presence on the governing body of representatives of the locality. It was most desirable that they should reserve to themselves greater liberty to try the experiment of these governing bodies rather than, to stereotype them in the Bill; but the House would never consent to the minimising of the civic element that was contained in the hon. Member's schedule.

The whole question was what proportion they were to fix between the civic and academic elements. There was a very considerable difference between the hon. Gentleman and himself. The hon. Gentleman cut the civic representatives in Cork down to two; while preserving the academic majority he desired to enlist the sympathy of the county councils of that great province which the University would serve, and he could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 38. (Division List No. 216.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Curran, Peter Francis	Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Dalziel, James Henry	Hazleton, Richard
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Healy, Timothy Michael
Ambrose, Robert	Delany, William	Hemmerde, Edward George
Armitage, R.	Devlin, Joseph	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Henry, Charles S.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Dillon, John	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Barnard, E. B.	Donelan, Captain A.	Higham, John Sharp
Barnes, G. N.	Duckworth, James	Hogan, Michael
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Duffy, William J.	Horniman, Emslie John
Beale, W. P.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Hudson, Walter
Beauchamp, E.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Hyde, Clarendon
Beck, A. Cecil	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Idris, T. H. W.
Bell, Richard	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Illingworth, Percy H.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Erskine, David C.	Jackson, R. S.
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Bennett, E. N.	Esslemont, George Birnie	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Everett, R. Lacey	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Boland, John	Farrell, James Patrick	Joyce, Michael
Boulton, A. C. F.	Fenwick, Charles	Kavanagh, Walter M.
Brace, William	Ferens, T. R.	Kearley, Sir Hudson E.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Branch, James	Ffrench, Peter	Kettle, Thomas Michael
Brigg, John	Field, William	Kilbride, Denis
Brooke, Stopford	Findlay, Alexander	Lamont, Norman
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Flynn, James Christopher	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Burke, E. Haviland-	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Burns, Rt. Hon, John	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lehmann, R. C.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Fullerton, Hugh	Lewis, John Herbert
Byles, William Pollard	Gill, A. H.	Lundon, W.
Cameron, Robert	Glendinning, R. G.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Chance, Fredreick William	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Lyell, Charles Henry
Cheetham, John Frederick	Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs
Clancy, John Joseph	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Maclean, Donald
Cleland, J. W.	Griffith, Ellis J.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Clough, William	Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Clynes, J. R.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Halpin, J.	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Compton-Rickett, Sir J.	Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale	M'Killop, W.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	M'Micking, Major G.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Harrington, Timothy	Markham, Arthur Basil
Cowan, W. H.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Marnham, F. J.
Crean, Eugene	Halsam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Meagher, Michael
Crooks, William	Haworth, Arthur A.	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.
Cullinan, J.	Hayden, John Patrick	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.
Menzies, Walter	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Steadman, W. C.
Micklem, Natheniel	Radford, G. H.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Molteno, Percy Alport	Raphael, Herbert H.	Summerbell, T.
Mooney, J. J.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Reddy, M.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Morse, L. L.	Redmond, William (Clare)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Murnaghan, George	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th	Tomkinson, James
Murphey, John (Kerry, East)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Toulmin, George
Myer, Horatio	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Verney, F. W.
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Napier, T. B.	Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Nolan, Joseph	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	Walsh, Stephen
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Robinson, S.	Walton, Joseph
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Nussey, Thomas Willans	Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Wardle, George J.
Nuttall, Harry	Roche, John (Galway, East)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Roe, Sir Thomas	Waterlow, D. S.
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
O'Brien, William (Cork)	Rowlands, J.	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Russell, T. W.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
O'Doherty, Philip	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Sears, J. E.	Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.
O'Dowd, John	Seaverns, J. H.	Wiles, Thomas
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.	Seddon, J.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Malley, William	Show, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Parker, James (Halifax)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wood, T. McKinnon
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Young, Samuel
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Pollard, Dr.	Snowden, P.
Power, Patrick Joseph	Spicer, Sir Albert
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Fell, Arthur	Massie, J.
Ashley, W. W.	Hamilton, Marquess of	Moore, William
Balcarres, Lord	Hill, Sir Clement	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hills, J. W.	Percy, Earl
Cave, George	Holt, Richard Durning	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Clark, George Smith	Joynson-Hicks, William	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Thornton, Percy M.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Butcher and Mr. Hugh Barrie.
Craik, Sir Henry	M'Arthur, Charles
Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Magnus, Sir Philip

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 11, to leave out the word 'the,' and to insert the words 'any such new.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 11, after the word 'Charter,' to insert the words 'or an alteration of an existing Charter.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)

Amendment agreed to.

*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS

said that in the absence of the hon. Member for Cambridge University he wished to move an Amendment, of which he himself had also given notice. The main object of his Amendment was to give in the first instance powers of recognising institutions and teachers to the Statutory Commissioners rather than to the Senate. As soon as the functions of the Statutory Commissioners ceased it would be in the power of the Senate of the University to recognise any institution that they liked. Personally, he thought that it would be a very great advantage if, in the first instance, the Statutory Commissioners should be empowered, as they were not by the Bill, to recognise institutions which would receive the privileges referred to in the clause. There were many reasons why it was desirable that those powers should be given to the Statutory Commissioners. In the first place, the Statutory Commissioners might be said, without any disrespect to the new Senate, to be a more judicial body than the Senate. They would be altogether freer from external influences or pressure being brought to bear upon them. Further than that, they were a very much smaller body, ten in the case of the Dublin University, and seven in the case of the Belfast University. He thought that such a body would be able to consider the evidence that might be submitted, and adjudicate on the claims of institutions to be recognised as part of the University very much better than the Senate which consisted of thirty or forty members. He must say that there was a good precedent for the course he recommended. In the case of the London University, the Statutory Commissioners actually put into the Schedule of the Statutes certain schools which became schools of the University. Moreover, they scheduled at the same time the first list of teachers who were to be regarded as recognised teachers of the University. There were special reasons why the Statutory Commissioners should exercise that power in the case of the two new Universities in Ireland. He did not think there could be any doubt whatever that the Statutory Commissioners as well as the Senate of the University which was to have its seat in Dublin, would recognise Maynooth as one of the colleges to which this privilege was to be given. Personally, he had never seen any objection to the recognition of Maynooth, although similar objections applied to Maynooth which had been urged against Magee College. He did not think there was any likelihood of the Statutory Commissioners, with the strong evidence which would be brought before then as to the importance of recognising the College of Maynooth, refusing to do so. But there was another college much more closely connected with the educational life of Ireland, which it seemed to him it was still more important should be recognised in the new University to be established in Dublin. He was not so certain that the Royal College of Science would receive the same measure of recognition from the Senate to be appointed as he believed it would from the Statutory Commissioners, after hearing all the evidence as to its claims. He referred, as he had done in the Committee upstairs, to the importance of closely associating one of these new Universities with the Royal College of Science; and there were several reasons why that College should be associated with the new University at Dublin. He ventured to think that one of the first duties of the Commissioners would be so to arrange matters that there should be no overlapping nor cause of friction between the Royal College of Science and the University to be established in Dublin. The time had long since pissed when humanistic studies were regarded as the main subject upon which a course of University education should be founded. Oxford and Cambridge had both created schools of applied science in which engineering and agriculture were taught, and every new University which had been established in this country had made its faculty of applied science one of the most important in the University. If they looked abroad they found the same thing. In France new Universities had been established in many towns, and attached to them all were what were called special schools, in which some branch of applied science or technology was made an essential part of the instruction. In Germany, for a long period, two sets of Universities had been in existence. That was to say, the teaching of applied science had been divorced from University education. The Germans themselves acknowledged that no greater mistake was ever made, and that if they were establishing their Universities afresh, they would attach the faculties of engineering and applied science to the Universities. In Ireland, of all countries, it was very important; that great prominence should be given to the teaching of applied science and technology, and for that reason he strongly urged that the Commissioners to be appointed should have the power of recognising the Royal College of Science. There could be no doubt whatever that in the new University at Dublin applied science would be taught, and he had no hesitation in saying there was no room in Dublin for three efficient schools of applied science. There was already such a school in connection with Trinity College, and there was the Royal College of Science, and it would be a lamentable waste of effort and money if separate laboratories were to be established in connection with the new University, having regard to the excellent arrangements that now existed for the teaching of different branches of pure and applied science in the Royal College of Science. Complaint was made that the amount of money placed at the disposal of the new University for building and maintenance was insufficient, but if use were made of the facilities for the teaching of science which already existed in connection with the Royal College of Science, a large amount of money would be set free for the purpose of establishing those hostels which were such an important part of the organisation of a University. Only recently a Departmental Committee, of which the Minister for War was Chairman and of which he himself had been a member, recommended that the Royal College of Science and School of Mines at South Kensington, together with the City Guilds Technical College should be united in a new Institution to be known as the Imperial College of Science and Technology and should be affiliated to the University of London, and only yesterday it was admitted as a school of the University. But for that recommendation the Imperial College might have preferred to remain apart. It was for that reason that he wished the Statutory Commissioners to have power to recognise such colleges as they might think should be at once affiliated. Suppose that recognition did not take place, what would happen? How were the students of the Royal College of Science to obtain University degrees? The Royal University was already abolished, and the students of applied science would not be able to obtain a degree at all unless this college was recognised as part of the University. The students of this institution, which had done a most important work for the last forty years, would not otherwise be able to obtain degrees from the new University. What he had said with regard to Dublin applied equally to the University at Belfast. He had an Amendment on the Paper that the Technical Institute of Belfast should be represented on the governing body of the University of Belfast. It was essential that there should be the closest intimacy between the two. There were branches of engineering taught at the Queen's College and other branches taught at the Technical Institute, and it was essential that there should be no overlapping. The amount of money at the disposal of the new University was not too great, and it was most important that the teaching should be properly coordinated, and that these institutions, which were at present giving instruction in applied science, should be affiliated. He begged to move.

*MR. BUTCHER

seconded the Amendment. As the Bill at present stood affiliation could be carried out only by the University governing body. But there would be an interval of two, perhaps of three years, during which the Commissioners were exercising their powers and no affiliation would be possible. During this interregnum the affiliation of a particular college or institute might become pressing, for one of the first duties of the Commissioners would be to draw out the general framework of study and to organise the faculties. Now the faculty of science could hardly be constituted unless the existing machinery for the teaching of science in Dublin was at once utilised. He reminded the House that the Royal College of Science was the only college in Ireland which the Robertson Commission recommended for immediate affiliation. As the Bill stood, however, the whole organisation of the science faculty would have to be postponed for two or three years until the powers of the Commissioners expired, and the Senate became the body responsible for the government of the University. This was a matter of urgent importance, and he could not conceive any reason why the Commissioners should not be entrusted with the power. The Chief Secretary said he desired to leave the governing body of the University free; but the Statutory Commissioners were a body quite as responsible as would be the new governing bodies, and were, moreover, invested with powers far greater than this which was denied them. Possibly there were one or two, other affiliations which ought to be carried out at once. He thought it extremely likely that the Royal College of Surgeons ought to be affiliated without delay; but in proposing that the Commissioners should have this power, he was not suggesting that reluctant bodies should be affiliated by force.

Amendment proposed— In page2, line 15, after the word 'which' to insert the words 'the Commissioners, and after the powers of the Commissioners determine."—(Sir Philip Magnus.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. BIRRELL

said that whilst in accord with a great deal of what the hon. Members had said, he really did not see the necessity of the Amendment. He was the last person in the world to doubt the qualifications of the body of gentlemen who, at great self-sacrifice, had consented to take upon themselves onerous duties, and to become Commissioners. The proposal of the Amendment was that the actual power of affiliation of any institution under the Bill should be taken away, at all events for the time being, from the Senate and conferred upon the statutory body of Commissioners. He did not think that would be wise or desirable. The Commissioners would have full power to make such recommendations as they might think fit as to what bodies should be affiliated, and it would be in the power of, the Senate to come to a decision upon any matter that might be of urgent importance. It would be impossible for the Commissioners to proceed with the determination of the faculty of science without knowing whether the College of Surgeons was willing to be affiliated, and whether the Senate intended to affiliate it. Supposing the Senate found that the college was willing to be affiliated, it would be quite possible for it to meet and decide the question, and the responsibility should be upon them rather than upon the Commissioners, whose powers were already sufficiently great to excite a certain amount of alarm amongst people interested in the subject. The Senate would be able to meet immediately after the passing of the Act for the purpose of electing Chancellors, and it would also meet from time to time for the purpose of relieving the work of the Commissioners and enabling them to know exactly what form their statutes were to take. The Senate would be able to meet at any time to consider any point that might be submitted to it, and he was quite sure they would give every consideration to any recommendation, aye or no, coming from a body so competent to perform their duties as the Commissioners, whether the College of Surgeons or the College of Science should be affiliated. He regarded the power of recognising courses of study in external colleges with a good deal of suspicion, and, if the Senate exercised any freedom which they must allow them, he hoped they would do so in a jealous and guarded spirit. He quite recognised that the case of the College of Science in Dublin presented difficulties, and that it would be a difficult thing to organise the faculty of science of the new University leaving that body altogether out of consideration. Many of the Commissioners were well acquainted with Dublin and the work of the College of Science, and, if these eminent men were to come to the conclusion that it was necessary for the working out of their scheme that the College of Science should be taken in, and they made a recommendation of that kind, he was quite sure the Senate would give that recommendation every consideration.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he was sorry the Chief Secretary could not meet the difficulty raised by his hon. friends. It would, of course, be the aim and object of the new University to extend its area as widely as it could and offer as great facilities as possible for higher education in every branch. The College of Surgeons and the College of Science were two institutions which had attained a high position amongst educational establishments in the world, and they had gone through a very serious period of development in their history. The Chief Secretary, he thought, ignored the fact that they were endowing this new University with a large amount of public money; and surely he knew that to argue that the Senate could give effect to this or that desire was really rather misleading. The powers of the Commissioners took precedence of any powers the Senate might have, and, assuming it to be the desire of the new University to offer facilities for education in science or surgery, it was quite conceivable that using the endowment Parliament was giving they might arrive at some scheme offering improved facilities on those of the College of Science and College of Surgeons at lower terms. He did not think it would have been outrageous to demand that those institutions should be affiliated, presuming they were willing. If they did not desire to be affiliated, well and good; but, assuming that they did, were they going to leave it open to the new University to destroy them by creating competing institutions? The Chief Secretary did not think it would happen. They did not ask that the colleges should have priority; all they asked was that it should be obligatory on the part of the Commissioners to hear and consider the case whether they should be affiliated; and, if the case was proved, to do what was necessary to affiliate them Was it to be left to the Senate to decide, aye or no, according as cheaper and better facilities might be offered by the new Universities? Surely the Chief Secretary must see that that was not treating the colleges fairly. These institutions were absolutely undenominational, and there could be no arguments similar to those used in connection with Amendments previously moved. They occupied special positions not only in Ireland but throughout the world. Did the Chief Secretary really believe he was giving them a fair chance by refusing the Amendment? He could answer for it that there was a very widespread feeling in Ireland, not by any means confined to one side of politics or creed, in support of the view put forward, and he profoundly regretted that the Chief Secretary had been unable to meet it, because he believed that by rejecting Amendments of this kind he was not giving his Bill the fair start which it ought to be given if it was to prove the success which it ought to be.

Amendment negatived.

*MR. BUTCHER moved an Amendment to provide that affiliation should be "by statute." The question was whether this very important question of affiliation—because there was no other word which expressed the meaning—should be carried out by statute or by resolution. For the moment, he would ask the House to put out of their heads the question of Maynooth, on which he would not enter, although it was the one which was most prominent in their minds when the word affiliation was mentioned. Maynooth was not the only body in Ireland which might be affiliated. Probably many hon. Members were not aware that there were many other seminaries in Ireland besides Maynooth, and bodies which would undoubtedly desire to get University degrees. It was given in evidence before the Robertson Commission by Dr. O'Dea, then Vice-President of Maynooth, that among the religious orders in Ireland there would probably be a hundred at any given moment who might wish to attend University courses in Arts. There were in Ireland altogether fourteen orders which embraced something like 600 priests. In addition to the religious orders, there was another class of clerical students who were preparing in their own seminaries for work in England or the Colonies, and that work was carried out at All Hallows College, Dublin, and also at four diocesan colleges. There were over 300 of these students, and they had been told on the same authoritative evidence that there would probally be about 100 candidates who would desire to graduate in Arts. It was quite clear that very great pressure would be brought to bear by all the seminaries in Ireland to get the same privileges which were given to any one seminary. But it was not merely a seminary question. There were a great many other colleges in Ireland which had nothing to do with clerics, where laymen would seek to get degrees by living in them as affiliated institutions without the necessity of residence at the seat of one of the constituent colleges. He mentioned this merely to show that affiliation ought to be guarded by the most stringent provisions that the House could provide, not from a religious or denominational, but from a purely educational point of view. If the Universites they were now setting up were to be teaching Universities, residential Universities in the real sense, the facilities for affiliation must be limited to the very utmost of their power, otherwise it was frankly his belief that they might as well maintain the Royal University as an examining body and not disturb existing arrangements and waste an enormous amount of public money. If that was so the privilege ought to be granted in a very guarded and restricted manner, and a mere resolution of the governing body should not be sufficient to carry out affiliation. There were two other considerations in this federal University, which made it all the more important that the procedure should be careful and deliberate. The first was this. The new University of Dublin was a federal University, and one of the weaknesses of a federal University was that its component elements were rather loosely compacted. It had not that degree of unity which obtained in the single independent University. It was always tending to disintegration, and disintegrated the new University would surely be, if they attempted affiliation on any large scale. The other consideration arose from the fact that according to the Bill and the charter read together, affiliation might take place on the proposal of any one of these constituent colleges without the consent of the other colleges. To take a single instance; suppose the college in Dublin desired that certain institutions should be affiliated to itself that were not even in the Province of Leinster, but in Munster, and within the sphere of influence of the college of Cork. This would at once withdraw students who would naturally have gone to the college in Cork. Therefore, they needed a method of procedure more careful and stringent than they had in the Bill. In the United Kingdom there was in existence one other federal University only, namely, the University of Wales, and affiliation in the University of Wales could only be done by statute. It required, moreover, the approval of the visitor, that is, the King acting through the Lord President of the Council. There they went so far as to make a two-thirds majority of those present and voting necessary for the making of the statute for carrying out affiliation. In the Scottish Universities affiliation could only be carried out by ordinance, which corresponded to a statute, and lay on the Table of the two Houses, from which there was an appeal to the Privy Council. There was also an elaborate arrangement in the newer Universities of Manchester, Leeds, and Liverpool, to safeguard the procedure of affiliation. Knowing what the dangers of affiliation were—dangers to the very existence of the new Universities—he thought it would be hardly possible for the Chief Secretary to refuse the Amendment.

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 16, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'by statute.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)

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

MR. BIRRELL

said that to impose the obligation referred to by statute would defeat the object of the hon. Member. The words of the clause were— Nothing in this section shall prevent provision being made by the charter of the new Universities under which the University may give to students who are pursuing a course of study of a University type approved by the governing body of the University in any recognised college in Ireland under teachers recognised by the governing body for the purpose, the benefit of any privileges of matriculated students of the University, or the right of obtaining a University degree, subject to any conditions or limitations contained in the charter or statutes of the University. Having once gone the length of recognising courses of study and teachers by statute they would not watch them with the same care afterwards. He shared entirely the hon. Member's anxiety upon this subject, and he was all the more anxious that the University should keep in their own hands the constant power of altering and withdrawing the privileges conferred by the clause. Supposing Dublin solemnly recognised Maynooth or some other place by statute, they could only take it away by statute, and thus instead of strengthening the hands of the University they would put obstacles in their way. Procedure by statute in a Ministerial Act of this sort, which had to be taken almost from term to term, was not the ordinary way in the case of other Universities. There was however, a good deal of force in the point with regard to the fact that Dublin was a federated University, having colleges outside at Cork and Galway. It was very desirable that it should not be in the power of the senate of the University to recognise an affiliated institution within the area of influence of one of the outlying constituent colleges without the consent of the governing body of that college. He was not sure that the charter as drawn up was as precise as it ought to be, and he was prepared to make an alteration so as to prevent the governing body at headquarters from coming within the immediate sphere of influence of either Cork or Galway, and so affiliating institutions they would not otherwise have affiliated. In consultation with the hon. Member he would see that the charter was altered in that respect.

SIR E. CARSON

said the point in dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. friend was really one of procedure. He thought the whole future of the University scheme which was being set up would practically depend upon how the procedure worked out. He believed that the Senate of the new University would do all they could to make it a success, and for his own part he hoped they would succeed. The question of the affiliation of schools was of extreme importance, and surely the Chief Secretary knew that in a country like Ireland it was not merely a question of what was said at Maynooth, but it was a matter of external pressure. It was that pressure which they ought to take care should be minimised as much as possible by the House of Commons as regarded the Senate. If he was right in his contention that it was merely a question of procedure, surely they ought to adopt that method which was the most deliberate, and which gave the greatest possible power to the Senate in resisting the pressure that might be put upon them from outside. Instead of having a mere resolution which might be carried to affiliate any of those colleges or seminaries, he thought it should be done by the statute of the University. That was a matter which ought to be fully considered, not merely with a view to the Senate passing a resolution, but also with a view to the statutes being laid upon the Table of the House. The Bill gave an enormous power to the Senate, and the Senate ought to have every opportunity of resisting outside pressure. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had given any real answer as to why the more deliberate form of affiliation should not be adopted. His hon. friend behind him had quoted two precedents—one, the precedent of Wales, which was a federated University wherein such a matter could only be done by the statute, Not only that, but there must be a considerable majority—a majority of two-thirds—in favour of the statute being passed. The other precedent quoted by his hon. friend was the Scottish precedent, which was in the same direction. Those precedents were founded upon commonsense and upon the idea that such a matter as this ought to be done with the greatest possible deliberation in regard to schools which it might not be advisable to admit to the position of affiliated colleges. In all goodwill he pressed this upon the Chief Secretary as a matter which might have far-reaching results upon the position which the University would attain not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout the Empire. If it came to be believed outside of Ireland that there were schools attached to the University which should not be attached to it, the University would never reach a position of eminence in the world of Universities, and in the world of science and art. This was a matter which ought not to be hastily dealt with. It ought to have very grave consideration. He thought the Chief Secretary should provide some safeguard to ensure that affiliations would be carried out in the best interests of the University.

*MR. C. J. O'DONNELL

said that the Amendment was based on a suspicion that these bodies would not have at heart the interests of the Universities that they represented. Why should the Universities be tied down in swaddling clothes from the very outset? It was obvious that the persons who would have the greatest interest in the Universities would be the members of the Seriate, and he did not think that they should be hampered in matters in regard to which they would be very much better informed than anybody else could be. On that side of the House they believed that the fifty-two bodies would be more or less representative, and that their work should not be made more difficult by unnecessary restrictions.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said this was a matter of the greatest importance to the future of the Universities, and he hoped that hon. Members below the gangway would understand that, whatever criticisms he had to offer in regard to the proposals of the Government, he heartily desired these Universities to be a success. He wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to this point. The conditions under which affiliation was to take place were indeterminate. There seemed to be a risk that the University might be flooded by extraneous students who had no opportunities for building up the traditions on which a University must afterwards live, and who might damage and disparage its character with the outside world. The affiliation of a college ought to be a matter of serious consideration to the body undertaking it. Although the Chief Secretary had said that it was so delicate a matter that it ought not to be stereotyped in any way by statute, he ventured to say that it was one of those things which could not be undone readily. Once done, it could not easily be undone, and if the University was to stand on its own foundation it ought not to be flooded at the outset with extraneous students who had no opportunity of associating themselves with the life of the University.

MR. BIRRELL

said the clause provided that the benefit of the privileges of the University or the right of obtaining a University degree, were only to be extended to students of affiliated colleges "subject to any conditions or limitations contained in the Charter or Statutes of the University."

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said that might be done or undone by a body sitting in private, and there was nothing in the whole of the conditions of affiliation to prevent provisions being made for the affiliation of colleges contrary to the wish of the general body of the University.

MR. BIRRELL

said there was the statute of the University.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said a statute of the University was passed by the governing body of the University, and not by the general body of the University. The University public had no opportunity of considering whether it was or was not to the advantage of the University that an affiliation should take place. Affiliation should not be allowed to take place except after the fullest publicity and consideration. He had no desire to check the progress of affiliation in the case of institutions which it was desirable to affiliate, but it was most important when a new University was to be built up that its life and tradition should not suffer from the affiliation of institutions which ought not to be affiliated.

Amendment negatived.

*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS moved to amend subsection (4) of the clause so as to provide that the University might "recognise any college or institution in Ireland" by giving to students the privileges mentioned in the subsection. The purpose of this Amendment was, he said, to give a definition of what the recognition of a college really meant. He would point out that there was a little more in the Amendment than might appear at first sight. He would like the Chief Secretary to explain whether he intended that a set of teachers or a particular teacher, who might give education of a University character, should be recognised as such, notwithstanding any conditions under which that teaching was given. That was to say, was the right hon. gentleman prepared to give recognition to institutions in which the education provided was clearly of University type, or to teachers in Colleges whether or no they were properly equipped.

MR. RAWLINSON

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 16, to leave out the word 'give,' and insert the words "recognise any college or institution in Ireland by giving.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)

MR. BIRRELL

said he could not possibly accept the Amendment, which would completely upset the whole purport of the clause. The clause did not propose to recognise any college or institution whatever in Ireland, as such; it would simply ascertain whether in any particular college or institution there were teachers of a particular University type, giving teaching of a particular character. He would point out that they were making very slow progress, and that they had to get somewhere or other through a whole number of Amendments, and nobody wished to sit late that night or beyond a comparatively reasonable hour to-morrow.

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

Amendment negatived.

MR. BIRRELL moved the insertion of the word "matriculated" before, "students." It was obviously a mistake to have omitted the word in drafting the subsection, because it was perfectly plain that the benefit was to be conferred only on matriculated students.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 16, after the words 'give to' insert 'matriculated.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'matriculated' be there inserted."

CAPTAIN CRAIG

said that a considerable number of colleges considered that the provisions of the Bill would exclude a very large number of extern students from the benefits of the measure As the merits or demerits of the Bill were bound up with the question whether extern students could get a degree under its proposals it seemed to him that the only opportunity which the House would have of discussing the question of extern students would be on the Amendment of the Chief Secretary.

MR. BIRRELL

said that even if an extern student were to be admitted he would have to be matriculated.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

understood that it did not entail the student's being resident in the University.

MR. BIRRELL

No.

MR. MOORE

asked whether the matriculation to be recognised was to be at Maynooth or at the University.

MR. BIRRELL

said that matriculation was a University performance.

MR. MOORE

said that that was quite inconsistent with the clause. If it was to be matriculation at the University these students could not be denied the same privileges as the students of the University.

MR. BIRRELL

pointed out that a student could not matriculate at Maynooth. Maynooth was not a University.

MR. MOORE

contended in that case that it went further than the Chief Secretary intended, and that the word was being put in the wrong place. If the right hon. Gentleman read the clause with the word "matriculate" put in after "pursuing" he would find that the student would matriculate in a recognised college.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment agreed to.

CAPTAIN CRAIG moved to omit the provision that the course of study of a University type giving students the right of obtaining a University degree should be "approved by the governing body of the University, in any recognised college in Ireland under teachers recognised by the governing body for that purpose." He said that the point raised by the Amendment was very important. Under Clause 2 as it at present stood there was no power whatever to provide that an external student should be treated in a similar manner to that in which he would in the Royal University of Ireland. A great hardship would be done thereby to Irish national school teachers whose case could be dealt with by leaving out the words suggested in the Amendment. He submitted that as these teachers were worse paid than similar teachers anywhere else they should at least be given the privilege under the Bill of attending the University and paying half fees. Outside that there was the question of the various county councils of Ireland sending privleged men in their area to be taught in the University. There were people in Ireland who could not go and ask for special treatment such as that, and to that class his Amendment specially applied. The rule would prove a great success to those who were able to pass the qualifying examination, if this clause passed. But if it was confined to those students who were students of an affiliated institution, those who did not belong to such an institution would be cut off from all privileges which all persons in the category had been anxious to obtain in the Royal University of Ireland. The institutions to be affiliated to the Universities proposed by this Bill were already known. It was also well known that none of the county councils of Ireland would send up to the Universities anyone but their own particular proteges. And nobody believed that in certain parts of the south and west of Ireland such toleration would exist as the extension of this privilege by the county councils to the small minority of Protestant parents who resided there, or that their children would ever be sent to the University at the expense of the rates. That being so, they would refuse to go to the county councils for assistance to obtain the privileges they had had in the past. One of the greatest blots on the Bill was that it excluded entirely the external students. Under it they had no opportunities. There need be no question of bigotry, because the Amendment covered both Universities. He submitted that they should not give all these privileges to the students of these affiliated colleges and keep them from a man who desired to take a degree at the University as a reward for his own hard work at the cost of his own small savings. The amendment was absolutely necessary in order to protect the Universities in Ireland. County councils were all very well, but they were not to be trusted to treat the Universities as they ought to be treated; and in their interest, and particularly in the interest of the established body of national school teachers, he hoped the Chief Secretary would allow the Amendment.

*MR. CHARLES CRAIG

commended the Amendment to the House as one of the utmost importance. There were at the present time in Ireland 4,000 students of the Royal University, and of these there were probably 2,500 who had worked in their own time, and had perfected themselves for examination for a degree at the Royal University. The Bill would absolutely exclude these students from the right which every Irishman had enjoyed for a great number of years, to present themselves for examination at the Royal University and to obtain a degree. This was a very serious step for the Government to take. The Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Cambridge University, and other Members, contended that the most valuable part of University education was the association with one's fellows, and in this he was to a certain extent in agreement; but he would ask the House to remember that there were fundamental differences between England and Ireland in this respect. There were many more Universities in England, and it was much more easy for an individual to become a student of a University. Ireland was comparatively a much poorer country, and the proportion of persons who could afford the time and money to go to a University was much smaller; in fact, the number who would be able to avail themselves of the University to be set up would be comparatively small. Everybody agreed it was desirable that people should obtain sufficient knowledge to take a degree, and, whilst he admitted there were a great many arguments in favour of the association of persons in a University, he believed nothing but good could be said to have come from the system which at present existed in Ireland, and by which anybody could get a University degree if sufficiently clever. He had not heard any sufficient argument why the right which had been enjoyed in Ireland for a great many years should be suddenly cut off. The case of the national school teacher would be particularly hard. If anybody ought to be able to obtain a degree with the least amount of trouble, it was the person who had to impart instruction to others. He could not understand what argument could be put forward why this deserving class should be deprived of the right of taking a degree at the Royal University. There was also a large number of clergy who were too poor to go either to Trinity College or to one of the Queen's Colleges, and who, in their leisure hours had worked, and had finally presented themselves and obtained a degree at the Royal University. They, too, were going to be cut off from the right.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 17, to leave out from the Word 'type' to the second 'the' in line 20."—(Captain Craig.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'for' in line 19, stand part of the Bill."

MR. BIRRELL

said that were the Amendment carried, the Bill, in his opinion, would be worthless; certainly from that moment all his interest in it would cease. They had all along made it perfectly plain that their object was to try and establish a University of the same kind as the Universities of England and Scotland, not merely a University where degrees should be obtained, but a University which should in fact be a teaching institution. It was no use saying the University would have the power of recognising teaching in another place. That in no way disproved the value of the new University they were setting up, because the rights of affiliation where used would be used in respect of places where University teaching was given. The case of the national school teachers could easily be provided for by the rules and regulations of the Universities.

*SIR W. J. COLLINS

ventured to hope that this Amendment would be withdrawn. He himself had an Amendment on the Paper which raised the question of the external students, quite independently of these matters, and he thought it would be better raised on that Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed:— In page 2, line 19, after the word 'body,' to insert the words 'of the University':"—Captain Craig.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

*SIR W. J. COLLINS

, in moving an Amendment in the interests of extern students, said that not with standing what had fallen from the Chief Secretary, he ventured to appeal on behalf of the external students, because the opportunity of residential instruction in colleges in Dublin was not necessarily incompatible with external graduation on the part of those who had neither time nor money to provide for residential courses. After all, residence was not everything. In these days, when examinations were so much disparaged, it was nevertheless something to prove a knowledge of any particular subject. The Chief Secretary would not run down examinations. He had quoted Melancthon to prove they were an antidote alike to sloth and to arrogance. The importtance of the University of London in this regard was to the point. Some ten years ago the University was reconstructed by this House, and made a teaching University. But it was not thought wise to shut the door to external students, and that door had remained open ever since, and not with standing the fact that it had been made a teaching University the external side was as large now as it was in 1898, or larger. It was stated in the Committee upstairs that this difficulty could be got over by providing bursaries, scholarships, and so forth. There were two types of knowledge which came to the door of the modern democratic University, and asked for recognition. On the one hand there were those who proceeded along the approved course of residential teaching with examinations conducted largely by their own teachers; and on the other hand there was a high standard of pass degrees conducted by independent examiners for those who had been unable to avail themselves of the residential facilities. Many of the most worthy candidates would have the door shut in their faces if this clause as it stood was sanctioned by the House. Not only would the national school teachers be prevented from obtaining degrees, but many who were engaged in commercial pursuits and technical work and training, and who, after their day's work was over, sat down and studied the theoretical side of the practical work they had done during the day, and who desired to register the result of their studies in it by taking a degree. In his opinion the University of London ought to be a guide to the Government in this matter, and it was for that reason he proposed this Amendment. For the first twenty years of its existence the constitution of the London University was very much the same as that of the University of this Bill. Its candidates came only from affiliated institutions. But it was soon found that this was very little guarantee of any academic attainment whatsoever. It was in 1858 that it threw open its doors to the external student, and from then up to 1898 all the students were external students. When in 1898 it was made a teaching University it was thought unwise to shut the external door. He thought the same experience would repeat itself in Ireland. He thought in carrying out affiliation the tendency would be for the affiliated colleges to degenerate. The University of London maintained a system of high standard examination which kept the door open to all who applied. In that way they would be recognising a class of knowledge the recognition of which ought not to be denied to anybody in a democratic free University such as they were told the new Universities were going to he in Ireland.

MR. SEDDON (Lancashire, Newton)

said he would not repeat speeches which had been made upstairs. He understood that some of the opposition of the Chief Secretary was due to the fact that he was afraid this would lead to students cramming, and that University degrees might be obtained in that way. Personally, he had the same detestation in regard to cramming. So far as the degree was concerned it merely marked in these cases the standard of education attained, and was not worth much to those who received it. That might be the idea of the Chief Secretary, because they all knew his great scholastic attainments, but that was not the idea in the mind of the average Irish student. The average student trained in a college liked to feel that by energy and industry he would have a chance of getting one of those degrees. What would be the result if this Amendment was not carried? There were a great number of obscure people who through poverty could not obtain the highest form of education in the usual way, and they resorted to secondary and technical schools, burning the midnight oil, and in his opinion nobody ought to be more encouraged in this form of education than those who did all this by their own solitary efforts. It was easy for the Senates to exercise some control over the crammer, because they might inquire as to what method a candidate had adopted to gain the knowledge he possessed. He was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman would be consulting the needs of the poor if he would consider the advisability of accepting the. Amendment. He could not see what danger there was in allowing these external students to come in. They had to show evidence that they had attained a high standard of education or they would not get their degree, and then they would have paid all their money without any result. External students were not any danger to college life, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he accepted this Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 19, after the word "purpose," to insert the words "or to students who are pursuing studies otherwise than in a recognised college."—(Sir William Collins.)

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

*MR. C. J. O'DONNELL

said that for over thirty years the Royal University had allowed external students to come in, and he had never heard any opposition from hon. Gentlemen representing Ireland, and there had been no condemnation of the system. Now the proposal was being made to exclude externs although everybody in Ireland approved of the system. He found that the association of Catholic graduates met in Dublin and condemned this proposal, and the Convocation of the Royal University, representing 7,000 graduates, demanded the inclusion of externs. The Rev. Dr. Delany, the Rector of the Catholic University College, also condemned the proposal to exclude externs. He was quite certain that the Chief Secretary would not be able to mention one single authority in the whole length and breadth of Ireland which approved of this great desire to have nothing but strictly residential college education in Ireland. There was nothing more honourable in the whole field of education than the giving of every assistance and opportunity to the poor student to win a high position in the academic world. Such opportunities were necessary for the great body of teachers. It was well known that when a teacher was in the lower ranks of his profession he could not rise unless he got a University degree. Another objection to the Government proposal was that it would practically exclude women. Other Universities gave degrees to women, and he noticed recently in an Irish newspaper the fact that some nuns had obtained degrees at the Royal Universities. If the right hon. Gentleman would not yield on this point he felt sure he would be doing a great injury to education in Ireland, for he would be closing the door which had been open for thirty years to external students and slamming it in the face of the poor of Ireland. Even the University of London found it necessary to open its doors to extern students. He felt strongly that the proposal to exclude external students was a retrograde and undemocratic idea which would prevent poor students from obtaining degrees in Ireland.

SIR E. CARSON

said that those who were acquainted with the conditions of the people of Ireland knew that this was an exceedingly difficult question. If they were going to have this system of external students, why should the Royal University be abolished? The Royal University had existed as a degree conferring University, and he supposed it was because it had not sufficiently met the wants of the people that the now Universities were being set up. If they adopted this Amendment they might as well retain the old Royal University. He did not see the distinction. At the same time he thought they had gone a considerable way towards that in the provision which had been adopted with respect to affiliation of schools and colleges throughout Ireland. He doubted whether the students would be anything but external students, unless great care was taken in regard to affiliation. He would point out to the mover and seconder of the Amendment that the teaching obtained in affiliated schools would count as if the students had come up to live in the University. So far from approving of that, he thought it was a blot on the Bill. He felt perfectly certain that they ought not to go further in putting an end to the Bill by inserting provisions which would really be equivalent to the retention of the old Royal University.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said the hon. Member for Walworth was a member of the Committee upstairs, but not during the whole of its deliberations. He gathered from the hon. Member's remarks that he must have been absent when this matter was under discussion. If he was present, he could not understand his statement that no people representing Ireland were in favour of this provision in the Bill, because if he was present he would have known that the Nationalist Members spoke and voted against the Amendment.

MR. C. J. O'DONNELL

I said no public body in Ireland.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he regarded the elected representatives of the people as fulfilling that definition. The objection which he and his colleagues took to the Amendment had been stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. The grievance which they had against the system of University education which had existed up to the present time had been that the Royal University had simply been an examining board, and that there had been nothing in the nature of a teaching residential University. They desired that that University should be abolished, and that there should be established a teaching residential University. They were anxious to attract students to Dublin to take their course in that University. He regarded the obtaining of degrees by external students who were crammed for examinations down in the country, and who had no share in University life, as of little value whatever. The value which he attached to University life was to be found, he might almost say, more in the associations and life of the University than in examinations. He was not at all sure that it was a good thing for a boy living down in the country to be crammed, and then sent up to take a degree. They wanted to attract students to the great central institution which they hoped would be established. The only arguments against that was that there would be many poor but clever boys whose parents would not be able to pay for their coming up to take the teaching in the University. That argument was met by the provisions in the Bill which enabled county councils, and the Intermediate Board of Education, which had large funds at its disposal, to establish exhibitions and bursaries to enable clever boys to come up to Dublin. These exhibitions and bursaries would, of course, be properly distributed. He was sure no one would pay any attention to the unworthy insinuations thrown out by some hon. Gentlemen that these exhibitions and bursaries would not be given impartially. They would be offered to clever boys whatever the creed or the politics of their parents might be. He would regret extremely if the Amendment were carried. It would destroy the Bill and leave them still with the system of which they complained under the Royal University.

*MR. BUTCHER

said he agreed with what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would be inexorable on this point. The Amendment went to the very heart of the Bill. It would establish in the new University two competing principles which would continue to compete until the one had finally vanquished and subjugated the other. He believed that when the system of examination was brought in under the Royal University, classes in the teaching institutions were depleted and men ceased to learn in the old way, and, what was more, the idea of University education almost ceased to exist in Ireland. He thought London University was a most dangerous precedent, and to him it was an example to be avoided in regard to Ireland. He did not mean to say that London was a failure in its own line, but he thought that if the London system were transferred to Ireland it would be an absolute failure in regard to the new University. He admitted that the poverty of Ireland was a matter which deserved consideration in this matter, and when he supported the principle of the Bill as against a system of external students, he did not do it on the high and lofty ground of academic principle, but on the ground of the experience of Ireland itself. The canker of examination had eaten into the whole educational system of Ireland. He opposed the Amendment not on any a priori or academic ground, but in order to remedy an evil which had been recognised by everybody in Ireland who had given serious consideration to the question. One hon. Gentleman had said that he did not know who had ever condemned the system of the Royal University of Ireland. He did not know anyone out of this House who had ever defended the Royal University system. In three volumes of evidence given before the Robertson Commission he did not remember the name of one single witness who had defended it. The one thing on which everyone was agreed was that the system must be brought to an end. He admitted that the poverty disability was undoubtedly a real one; but other countries had proved that their love of learning could prevail even over conditions of poverty. Everybody who knew Scotland was aware that though there was poverty in that country, thousands of young Scotsmen flocked to their Universities; and once the love of learning was kindled in the people, poverty would be no bar to its acquisition. As the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said there were provisions in the Bill which would make it possible for the poorer young men in, Ireland through the Intermediate Board and through the county councils to be aided in their University education, by way of scholarships, bursaries, and payment of fees. And it was to be remembered that a certain period of grace was given. The system was not to be brought to an end at once; at least five or possibly seven years interval would elapse during which candidates would be able to adjust themselves to the new conditions. He would only say that if he had to choose between an academic degree without academic training and academic life on the one hand; and an academic training and academic life without a degree, he should choose the latter.

MR. BIRRELL

said that for reasons he had already expressed on other occasions, and for the reasons stated by previous speakers, it was perfectly impossible for him to accept the Amendment. The effect of it would be to continue the existence of the Royal University as a mere examining body with students coming up to it and taking their degree, and the new University would not be able to compete with it. An hon. Member below the gangway had spoken of getting rid of the crammer; but he did not believe it posssible that any University body could dodge the crammer. If they kept the Royal University alive, by which men could get a degree by simply passing its examinations, they would never get rid of the canker which was eating the heart out of true learning in Ireland. It was therefore absolutely essential to get the Royal University out of the way after a period of at least five years.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said he should vote for the Government on this occasion on account of the Chief Secretary. He was in favour of the Amendment. He

should vote against it, but he had not time to state the reasons.

MR. MOORE

hoped the mover of the Amendment would go to a division, because to pass the clause as it stood meant a great hardship to many students. It was not necessary to go to London to see how the Amendment would work. In Trinity College, Dublin, there was a system whereby extern and residential students obtained degrees together, and it had worked exceedingly well so long as the standard was kept up. The experience of London University showed that the two systems could grow up together, and he saw no reason why the two systems should not prevail in the new University.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 38; Noes, 263. (Division List No. 217.)

AYES.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rowlands, J.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gretton, John	Sears, J. E.
Bennett, E. N.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Starkey, John R.
Brace, William	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Hill, Sir Clement	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen
Clough, William	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)	Moore, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Collins and Mr. Seddon.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Dalrymple, Viscount	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Bertram, Julius	Clancy, John Joseph
Acland, Francis Dyke	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Clynes, J. R.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Boland, John	Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch	Bowerman, C. W.	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Ambrose, Robert	Bramsdon, T. A.	Compton-Rickett, Sir J.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Brigg, John	Condon, Thomas Joseph
Armitage, R.	Brodie, H. C.	Cooper, G. J.
Balcarres, Lord	Brooke, Stopford	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Corbett, H C (Sussex, E. Grinst'd
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Burke, E. Haviland-	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Barnard, E. B.	Butcher, Samuel Henry	Cowan, W. H.
Barnes, G. N.	Byles, William Pollard	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Craik, Sir Henry
Beale, W. P.	Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight	Crean, Eugene
Beauchamp, E.	Cave, George	Crooks, William
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Cullinan, J.
Beck, A. Cecil	Chance, Frederick William	Curran, Peter Francis
Bellairs, Carlyon	Cheetham, John Frederick	Dalziel, James Henry
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Delany, William	Kekewich, Sir George	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Devlin, Joseph	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Power, Patrick Joseph
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Kettle, Thomas Michael	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Dillon, John	Kilbride, Denis	Radford, G. H.
Donelan, Captain A.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Raphael, Herbert H.
Doughty, Sir George	Laidlaw, Robert	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Duckworth, James	Lamont, Norman	Reddy, M.
Duffy, William J.	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Redmond, William (Clare)
Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Lehmann, R. C.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Erskine David C.	Lewis, John Herbert	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Esslemont, George Birnie	Lundon, W.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Robinson, S.
Everett, R. Lacey	Lyell, Charles Henry	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Farrell, James Patrick	Lynch, H. B.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Fenwick, Charles	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Ferens, T. R.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Ffrench, Peter	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Russell, T. W.
Field, William	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Findlay, Alexander	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Flynn, James Christopher	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Seaverns, J. H.
Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Killop, W.	Seely, Colonel
Fullerton, Hugh	M'Micking, Major G.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Gill, A. H.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Glendinning, R. G.	Marnham, F. J.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Simon, John Allsebrook)
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)	Massie, J.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Gulland, John W.	Meagher, Michael	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Harcourt, Rt Hn. L. (Rossendale	Micklem, Nathaniel	Strachey, Sir Edward
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Middlebrook, William	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Harrington, Timothy	Mooney, J. J.	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Morrell, Philip	Summerbell, T.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Morse, L. L.	Sutherland, J. E.
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	Murnaghan, George	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Haworth, Arthur A.	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hayden, John Patrick	Nicholls, George	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hazleton, Richard	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Healy, Timothy Michael	Nolan, Joseph	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton
Hemmerde, Edward George	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Tomkinson, James
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Toulmin, George
Henry, Charles S.	Nuttall, Harry	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid	Verney, F. W.
Higham, John Sharp	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Hobart, Sir Robert	O'Brien, William (Cork)	Walsh, Stephen
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Hogan, Michael	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Wardle, George J.
Holt, Richard Durning	O'Doherty, Philip	Waterlow, D. S.
Horniman, Emslie John	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Hudson, Walter	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Hutton, Alfred Eddison	O'Dowd, John	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hyde, Clarendon	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Idris, T. H. W.	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)	Wiles, Thomas
Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Malley, William	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Jackson, R. S.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Parker, James (Halifax)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Partington, Oswald	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Joyce, Michael	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Joynson-Hicks, William	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Kavanagh, Walter M.	Pollard, Dr.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.