Lords Sitting of 3 July 1879

MINUTES.
Took the Oath for the first time— The Lord Bishop of Durham.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Whittington Common)* (136).
Committee—Report— Salmon Fishery Law Amendment (No. 2)* (126).
Third Reading—Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment (130); Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers)* (129); Dispensaries (Ireland)* (88), and passed.
Withdrawn—Divinity School (Church of Ireland) (36).
Royal Assent —Consolidated Fund (No. 4) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 20]; Customs and Inland Revenue [42 & 43 Vict. c. 21]; Statute Law Re-
1246
vision (Ireland) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 24]; West India Loans [42 & 43 Vict. c. 16]; Costs Taxation (House of Commons) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 17]; Racecourses (Metropolis) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 18]; Habitual Drunkards [42 & 43 Vict. c. 19]; Hares (Ireland) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 23]; Prosecution of Offences [42 & 43 Vict. c. 22]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Clonmel, &c.) [42 & 43 Vict. c.]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation [42 & 43 Vict. c. lv]; Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Brighton and Preston, &c.) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lviii]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lix]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cashel, &c.) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lvii]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Downpatrick) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lvi]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Waterford, &c.) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lx]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Bothwell) [42 & 43 Vict. e. lxi]; Metropolis (Little Coram Street, Bloomsbury, Wells Street, Poplar, and Great Peter Street, Westminster,) Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation [42 & 43 Vict. c. lxxix]; Local Government (Highways) Provisional Orders (Buckingham, &c.) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lxxvii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Aysgarth Union, &c.) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lxxviii]; Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Amendment [42 & 43 Vict. c. lxxx]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Matterdale Common) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lxxxi]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Redmoor and Golberdon Commons) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lxxxii]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Last Stainmore Common) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lxxxiii]; Local Government (Highways) Provisional Orders (Gloucester and Hereford) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lxxxiv]; Local Government (Highways) Provisional Orders (Dorset, &c.) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lxxxv]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Castleton-by-Rochdale, &c.) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lxxxvi]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders Kil-(larney, &c.) [42 & 43 Vict. c. lxxxvii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Aspull, &c.) [42 & 43 Vict. c. cv]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny Union, &c.) [42 & 43 Vict. c. ciii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Axminster Union, &c.) [42 & 43 Vict. c. civ]; Local Government (Poor Law) Provisional Orders [42 & 43 Vict. C. cvi].

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I beg to ask a Question of the noble and Earl on the Woolsack, of which I have given him Notice. A doubt has arisen as to the effect of the statement made by him on Monday on the Irish University question—a doubt which it is desirable to clear up. When the noble and learned Earl introduced this Bill, which was then read the first time, he de-

  1247
  scribed what were its objects—which may shortly be stated to be these. The Bill, which has since been read a first time, puts an end to the Queen's University in Ireland, without touching the Queen's Colleges or their endowments, and it creates a new University, at present without a name, which will have the power of conferring degrees on the same conditions as the Dublin University can now confer them, and on the same conditions as the London University can confer them in Ireland, and does do so at Tullamore and Carlow. Some persons contend that as the noble and learned Earl stated on Monday that as the Government had introduced this Bill contrary to their original intention, in order that their views might bed more distinctly and clearly set forth than would he clone on the second reading of the O'Conor Don's Bill, the Bill must contain all the Government plan. Others argue that it is difficult to maintain how it could be more difficult and less desirable to unfold in a speech in the House of Commons a plan of such extreme brevity and simplicity as that contained in this Bill, and which makes so little change, than by transferring the scene of action to the House of Lords; and they infer that the Government must intend to supplement it in some other way. I only wish to ascertain the matter of fact, and, therefore, ask, Whether the statement of Monday and the Bill contain the whole plan of the Government, or whether they contemplate any extension of the arrangements?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Bill to which your Lordships gave a first reading on Monday is printed, and in the hands of your Lordships. In answer to the Question of the noble Earl, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to make any proposals dealing with University Education in Ireland at present Other than those contained in that Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I observe that the noble and learned Earl has used the words "at present." Is the Bill to be part of a scheme which it is not desirable at once to make known?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I answered the Question in the ordinary way. When Her Majesty's Government submit a proposal to Parliament in a Bill, that is the proposal which they intend to make.

DIVINITY SCHOOL (CHURCH OF IRELAND) BILL—(No. 36.)
(The Earl of Belmore.)
DIVINITY SCHOOL (CHURCH OF IRELAND) BILL—(No. 36.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL or BELMORE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that when, some months ago, he explained at length its provisions, he stated that it was founded upon the Report of a Royal Commission. In 1873, the Fellows of the University were relieved from the obligation of taking Holy Orders, or of belongings to any particular denomination. The Protestant Church of Ireland felt that its position, as regarded Trinity College, was seriously affected; and, accordingly, the General Synod of the Church appointed a Committee to take the matter under its charge. The Committee entered into negotiations with Trinity College, and afterwards applied to Her Majesty's Government, who appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject. Of that Commission he had himself been Chairman. The Royal Commission had before them a proposal from the Board of Trinity College, and also a proposal from the Divinity School; and these two proposals, which in a great measure agreed, were to a certain extent adopted by the Commission. They recommended, amongst other things, that the connection should be kept up between the Church and the College by allowing the lecture-rooms of the College to be used for the purpose of the Divinity School lectures, and providing that the lectures should be given free of charge to the undergraduates attending the Divinity School. After he (the Earl of Belmore) had explained the provisions of the Bill, when it was last before their Lordships, his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack (Earl Cairns) suggested that it was important to ascertain what were the actual wishes of the Church of Ireland and of Trinity College, by which he meant not merely the Board, but also the Senate and the Academic Council, on the subject, and the second reading of the Bill was on that ground postponed until now. The first step was to refer the Bill to the General Synod of the Church; and it was done in this way. The Divinity School Committee drew up a

  1249
  report of their proceedings for the year, in which they stated all that had taken place up to that time in regard to the Bill, and drafted a resolution recommending that the Dill, as brought in, should be adopted by the Synod. The resolution was—
  " That the Synod hereby expresses its earnest desire that the Bill introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Belmore for the future management and control of the Divinity School shall receive the assent of Parliament with as little delay as possible."
  That resolution was brought before the Synod in a speech of great force and, if he might be allowed to say so, of great eloquence, by his noble and most rev. Friend near him (Lord Plunket); and a debate ensued, from which it appeared that a very considerable difference of opinion existed among those in the Synod who were members of the College, and also, perhaps, in a lesser degree, amongst other persons. A suggestion was made that the Bishops should be empowered to meet the Board of Trinity College in a conference, and see what arrangement could be come to with reference to the future management and control of the Divinity School. Many persons believed that the connection between the College and Church should be as close as possible—closer, in fact, than was proposed by the Bill. The meeting between the Bishops and the Board did not take place, as only a minority of the Board attended, and there was not a quorum, and the result was left for consideration by the Senate of Trinity College on the 1st of May. The University Senate met, and so great was the interest felt in the question that between 90 and 100 persons qualified themselves to become members of the Senate, in order to be present. A resolution was moved, in these terms, by a member of the Board who was hostile to the Bill—
  " That the Divinity School (Church of Ireland) Bill be not accepted, inasmuch as it is neither expedient nor just to the College and the University."
  That was met by a counter resolution, moved by the Rev. Dr. Salmon, Regius Professor of Divinity—" That the words from he not accepted' to the end be omitted" —and this amendment was carried by a considerable majority. Then the supporters of the Dill wished to go on to discuss what the nature of
  1250
  the connection between the Church and the University should be, the following words having, on the motion of the Rev. Professor Jellett, been substituted for the words omitted:—
  " Inasmuch as it appears to the Senate that there are other means by which the connection of the Divinity School with Trinity College can be maintained, and welfare of the school under the conditions, as altered by recent regulations, provided for."
  Dr. Longfield, who was acting for the Vice Chancellor, ruled that this could not he done without a further " grace" from the Board. Hem (the Earl of Belmore) was sure that Dr. Longfield in so ruling was actuated by no spirit of hostility to the Dill, as he was one of the Members of the Royal Commission upon whose Report it was founded; but only doing what he considered it was proper for him to do. A requisition, very influentially signed, was got up and sent to the Board, asking them to authorize, by a further grace, the Senate to consider what legislation they would recommend. The Provost, who was one of the members by whom the scheme of the Bill was recommended, proposed, at the meeting of the Board on the 10th of May, that the following " grace" should be sent to the Senate:—
  "That the University Senate do, at its annual meeting on the 21st of June next, consider the means by which the connection of the Divinity School with Trinity College may be fully maintained, and the welfare of the School under the conditions, as altered by recent legislation, provided for."
  This was put to the vote, and negatived by a majority of 2, out of 8 members. It was then moved that the following answer to the requisition be sent by the Registrar to the Lord Primate:—
  " The Chancellor of the University having desired from the Senate an expression of their opinion relating to Lord Belmore's Divinity School Bill, and the Senate having expressed an opinion unfavourable to it, the Board of Trinity College consider that it is not their part to invite a further discussion by the Senate of the general question involved, especially as Lord Belmore's Bill still remains on the Notice Book of the House of Lords, awaiting the final decision of that House."
  The Rev. Professor Jellett moved, in an Amendment—
  " That this answer is not satisfactory, inasmuch as it does not contain a full statement of the facts."

  1251
  But the amendment was negatived, and the original resolution was passed, thus bringing matters to a deadlock; for, while the House of Lords was waiting for the opinion of the Senate, the Senate was waiting for the opinion of the House of Lords. Another meeting of the Board was held at a subsequent day, and the question was re-opened; but nothing came of it, further than that the Vice Provost, who was friendly to the Bill, gave notice that he would, on the next Board-day, move that no alteration should be made in the Divinity School without the consent of the Bishops of the Church of Ireland. On 4th June, the Academic Council, having, on a previous occasion, adopted a resolution that they thought it
  "Undesirable that Trinity College should be deprived of any of its funds, provided a suitable endowment could be obtained from other sources,"
  discussed the matter, and came to the resolution that it was desirable, having regard to its bearing on the welfare of the Faculty of Arts, that there should be a Divinity School in the College, with due provision for its government, under the changes which recent legislation had made in the condition of the University, and that, accordingly, the Council did not approve of Lord Belmore's Dill as a settlement of the Trinity College Divinity School question. On the 18th of June, a resolution was proposed by Dr. Salmon, to the effect that the Senate having, by their resolution of May 1st, implied an opinion that the altered constitution of the University had made some legislation for the Divinity School desirable, the Council requested the Board to give the Senate an early opportunity of more fully declaring its mind on the subject; but this was rejected by a majority of 9 to 6. Then followed sonic resolutions, which he asked to be allowed to read at length, as they were the most important of all. They were as follows:—Dr. Salmon moved—
  " That it appears to the Council that a satisfactory settlement of the (Divinity School) question can be obtained by following the lines of the Letters Patent, 38 Vic., which established this Council."
  To that resolution the following amendment was moved by the Rev. J. W. Barlow:—
  " That, while considering it a matter of high importance, with regard to the welfare of other
  1252
  Faculties, that there should be a Divinity School in the University, this Council is of opinion that the time for final legislation on the subject has not yet arrived."
  The foregoing amendment was negatived by a majority of 11 to 3, and Dr. Salmon's resolution passed by the same majority. The following resolution was moved by the Provost, and passed by a majority of 11 to 3:—
  "That it is expedient that the Bishops of the Church of Ireland be invited to take part in the government of the Divinity School."
  The following resolution was also moved by the Provost, and passed without a division:—
  " That the annual sum at present expended on the Divinity School of Trinity College be secured for the permanent maintenance of that School."
  The Board of Trinity College having declined to re-open the question, and the Academic Council having expressed in general terms what they thought would be a fair way of bringing about a compromise, the matter so stood till the other day, when the General Synod adopted the following resolution:—
  "That, having regard to the resolution adopted by the Senate of the University at its meeting on the 1st of May last, this Synod is not prepared to press forward during the present Session the Divinity School (Church of Ireland) Bill."
  An amendment was moved that the words "during the present Session" be omitted; but that was lost. Some other resolutions were afterwards carried; but as he (the Earl of Belmore) had not followed the Bill up—not being a member of Trinity College—since the first day's discussion in the Synod, he would leave his noble and most rev. Friend (Lord Plunket) to describe them to their Lordships. There was, however, one point on which he desired to say a few words, and that was as regarded his own position in respect to the measure. In his motion against the Dill in the Senate of the University, the Rev. Dr. Carson made a speech, which he had no doubt —for ho (the Earl of Belmore) knew him very well—was a very able speech; it was certainly a very long one. He first proceeded to prove, what he should have thought required no proof, that Trinity College was not founded exclusively for the education of the clergy of

  1253
  the Protestant Church of Ireland. At the same time, he did maintain that the Divinity School—technically, he granted, the School of Trinity College—was also, practically, the School of the Church; for it was the only School in which the great majority, at least, of her clergy had been trained. Dr. Carson then went on to find fault with himself (the Earl of Belmore) for bringing in the Bill. That was not the first or the second time, in the course of his (the Earl of Belmore's) public life, in which lie had been found fault with, and ho dared say it would not be the last. But this Bill was, in fact, only carrying out what had been, so lately as 1876 and 1877, the proposal of the Board itself; arid to show that it was so he would road an extract from a letter which he had lately received from the Provost. The Provost said—
  " It is right to observe, however, that an Act of Parliament, such as that for which your Lordship has brought in a Bill, was the only means by which the resolutions of the Board of Trinity College—resolutions repeated in nearly every year from 1870 to 1876 inclusive—could have been carried into effect. When your Lordship, therefore, undertook, at the request of the Divinity School Committee, to bring in a Bill into the house of Lords, you were carrying out the expressed wishes of the College as well as those of the Church."
  He thought, therefore, that he was quite within his right in bringing in this measure. He anticipated that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would recommend him to give effect to the resolution of the Synod, and not to press the Dill at present. He was, of course, in their Lordships' hands. It mattered little to him whether the matter were settled by a Bill, or a compromise were to be effected in some other way. As a matter of Order, he moved the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Dill be now read Ca." —(The Earl of Belmore.)
  LORD PLUNKED: My Lords, after the remarks which have fallen from my noble Friend (the Earl of Belmore), your Lordships will agree with me that some statement should be made to this House as to the light in which the Church of Ireland regards this Bill at its present stage. That statement I shall endeavour to furnish. The subject is, I fear, a somewhat dull one, and its details somewhat intricate; but your Lordships will bear with me
  1254
  as I try to state what I have to say, as clearly and as briefly as the circumstances of the case will admit. In the first place, I think it right to remove one or two possible misapprehensions as to the nature and object of this Bill. This Bill is, in no sense of the word, a claim for endowment, either as regards the University of Dublin, or its Divinity School. It cannot even be strictly described as a claim for compensation. Were it necessary, a claim for compensation might not unfairly be made by the Church of Ireland in respect to its Divinity School. But, in such a case, it ought to be clearly remembered that the equivalent for such a claim on behalf of the Irish Church would have to be looked for, not in the possible endowment of some Catholic University in the future, but in the compensation which has been actually accorded to a Catholic Divinity School in the past. And, in the event of such a claim being made, the last persons to refuse it should be those who, at the time of the passing of the Irish Church Act, welcomed with satisfaction the generous treatment which the Divinity School of Maynooth then received at the hands of the State. But, as I have said, this Bill cannot be strictly regarded as a claim for compensation. It should rather be considered as embodying the terms of an arrangement between the Church of Ireland and the University, which the State is asked, by this Bill, to facilitate and carry into effect. But there is another misconception which I would wish to dispel. It has been thought by some that this Bill indicates a hostile spirit as between the Church of Ireland and the University of Dublin. My Lords, there could not be a greater mistake. The large majority of the members of that University are members of the Church of Ireland. The large majority of those who take a leading part in Irish Church affairs are members of the University. The members of the University love their Church. The members of the Church of Ireland love their University. And here let me take this opportunity of saying that if there have been any apparent differences between the Church of Ireland and some members of the Board of Trinity College, I, for one—and I express the opinions of many others—desire, in the most full and frank manner, to attribute whatever opposition we may have received to a

  1255
  single-minded desire, upon the part of those from whom we have differed, to promote the welfare of an institution in which they are deeply interested, and of which they may be justly proud. Lastly, I would wish to remove the possible impression that, because this Bill proposes to transfer the funds and the control of the Divinity School from Trinity College to the Church of Ireland, it therefore indicates an aggressive or grasping spirit on the part of that Church. The fact is, as my noble Friend has already pointed out, that the proposal to transfer the control of the School to the Church, and to pay over to the representative body of that Church the sums required for the salaries of its Processors, came, in the first instance, from the Board of Trinity College itself. It was subsequently affirmed by the Report of a Royal Commission on which the University was fairly represented. This Bill may, therefore, with justice, be regarded as due not less to the University than to the Church. And this brings me to the question, what was the necessity that called for this Bill? The answer is a simple one. It was the necessity of finding some remedy for the grievance to which the Church of Ireland had been subjected through the secularization of Trinity College—a secularization effected by the carrying out of what is generally known as Mr. Fawcett's Bill. The nature of that grievance has been so fully explained by my noble Friend that all I need do is to remind your Lordships that, as a result of that legislation, the control of the Divinity School and the appointment of its Professors now rests with a Body which, before long, may be utterly unfit for the discharge of so sacred a trust. My Lords, this is a grievance which is now admitted by all—not only so, but it is also regarded by all as a grievance which demands an immediate remedy. But where is the remedy to be found? Well, my Lords, there is one way in which it could be easily found. The University of Dublin might not only cease to teach theology, but it might resolve to banish theology and religion from within its walls. The Church of Ireland would, in such a case, be compelled to establish a separate Theological College for itself elsewhere. Such a proposition, I am happy to say, has not found favour with either the University or the Church. I cannot
  1256
  remember having met with a single member of my Church to whom it has commended itself. It seems, on the contrary, to be the general desire of all that those who are to be trained for the Ministry of our Church should pursue their studies in company with those who are preparing for other Professions, and should imbibe in a University that free, pure air of general learning and culture, and of unfettered intellectual enterprize which is not, as a rule, to be looked for in any merely theological seminary. But there is another way in which it was thought by many that the grievance might be met. It was thought that the University, while ceasing to teach theology itself, might give facilities for the teaching of theology and the payment of Divinity Professors by the Church of Ireland within its walls. It was thought that a separation between these two institutions might thus be effected only in name, and that all those mutual advantages might be preserved which now result from the daily contact and friendly co-operation of religion and learning in Our University. This, my Lords, is, in fact, the principle of the Bill now before the House. And I am bound to say that at the time when this Bill was first drawn up, this was the principle which was most popular amongst the friends both of the Church and of the University. And, let me add, it was under a strong conviction that such was the case that this Dill was introduced by the noble Earl and myself to the consideration of this House. I am, however, free to confess that in the minds of some Irish Churchmen this view of the case has been somewhat modified by recent events. And this brings me to review the circumstances which have elapsed since the first reading of this Bill. It will be in the recollection of your Lord-chips that when this Bill was a first time, the noble and learned Earl who sits upon the Woolsack expressed a desire that before this Dill should be again submitted to the House some expression of opinion regarding it should be obtained from the Synod of the Church of Ireland, and the Senate and Council of the University. Accordingly, my Lords, this Bill was brought under the notice of the Synod of the Church of Ireland at its recent meeting. No vote was come to, either accepting or rejecting the Bill; but, in the course of debate, it became

  1257
  manifest that there were not a few members of that Body who would prefer some solution of the question, which would involve a less degree of separation between the Divinity School and the University than that which seemed to them to be contemplated by the present Bill. In consequence of that manifestation of feeling, the Bishops of our Church, after a conference with some leading members of the Board of Trinity College, drew up a series of propositions, embodying an alternative scheme, and submitted them to the consideration of the Synod. No vote, however, was come to, either as regarded the Dill or thins alternative scheme, as it was thought well that the Synod should adjourn, pending the meeting of the Senate of the University, which was then at hand. Before, however, the Synod adjourned, certain resolutions, embodying principles of a more general character, and not inconsistent with either the Bill, or the alternative scheme proposed by the Bishops, were passed almost unanimously. To one of these, for the credit of the Church, I would ask leave to refer. Your Lordships will remember that when this Bill was read a first time I ventured to combat what seemed to me an exaggerated fear as to the possible effect of one of its provisions. I mean the clause which gives to the Synod of the Church of Ireland the election of the Body who should have the control of the Divinity School and the appointment of its Professors. It had been assumed by many persons that the Synod, if given this power, would make it the occasion for electing, in the heat and excitement of a popular assembly, and by a tyrannical majority, partizans, whose duty it would be to carry out the particular views of those from whom they had received their votes. Now, my Lords, it is a great satisfaction to me to be able to show that such fears were, as I ventured to anticipate, groundless. And as a proof of this, I need only point to the fact that in one of the resolutions recently passed by the general Synod, on the occasion to which I have just referred, the Synod declared itself willing to leave the control of the Divinity School, and the appointment of its Professors, altogether in the hands of the Archbishops and Bishops of their Church. But to return
  1258
  to the meeting of the Senate of the University. The Dill now before this House was submitted to that Body, and though the Senate distinctly refused to pronounce the Dill unjust or inexpedient, it declined to accept it, giving as a reason for so doing that there were other means whereby the object in view might be better carried out. It was hoped by many that an opportunity might be given for an expression of opinion on the part of the Senate as to what those other means might be. But, owing to circumstances into which I need not enter, no such opportunity presented itself; and, accordingly, nothing was left for the Synod but to endeavour, on its part, to meet the wish expressed by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, and to put on record, for the information of this House, some specific statement as to its view on this important question. With such an object, the Synod met again within the last few days, and passed certain resolutions. These resolutions I shall not quote in detail; but as they contain the sum and substance of the information for which your Lordships have a right to ask, I must refer very briefly to their general import. In the first place, the Synod resolved that, having regard to the decision come to by the Senate of the University, it was not prepared to press for the adoption of this Bill by Parliament during the present Session. While, however, thus disclaiming any intention of pressing forward this particular Bill at the present moment, the Synod affirmed most strongly that the time for some final legislation had arrived, and respectfully, but earnestly, called upon Government and Parliament to facilitate a settlement of the question without delay. Lastly, the Synod passed a series of resolutions, embodying the alternative scheme to which I have referred as having been submitted by the Bishops to the Synod on a former occasion. I shall not quote these resolutions in detail; but the proposal which they contain may be simply stated thus. They propose that the Divinity School should not merely be the Divinity School of the Church of Ireland in Trinity College, as would be the case under the provisions of this Bill now before the House, but that it should continue to be the Divinity School of Trinity College. These

  1259
  resolutions further provide for a dual system of government as between the Church and the University. They propose that the nomination of Divinity Professors, and a power to recommend changes in the Divinity course, should be vested in a Council consisting of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Ireland; but that the ultimate appointment of the Professors, and a veto on the recommendations of the Bishops, should rest with the Board of Trinity College. This proposal would seem to be reasonable, and to involve a fair distribution of authority. It gives to the Church an initiative choice in the selection of its teachers, a choice which would naturally concern itself with the question of religious and theological qualifications. Upon the other hand, it leaves with the Board of Trinity College, as a secular body, the power of preventing the appointment of teachers, who, from want of learning or academic culture, might do discredit to the University. Upon this proposition being submitted to the Synod, an amendment was proposed, by which the Board of Trinity College would have been given not only this ultimate power of veto in reference to matters affecting learning and culture, but also a voice in the Council which would have to deal specially with questions of religion and theology. This amendment was, however, rejected by an overwhelming majority; and it was evident from the whole tone of the debate, that the Synod had come to the decision that none of those to whom was to be intrusted the duty of choosing the future teachers of our Divinity School should be appointed to that sacred trust by any secularized body, indifferent, it might be—or even antagonistic—to those interests which the Church is bound to hold most dear. This was the position taken up by the Church at the recent Synod—and from such a position I cannot, for my own part, see how the Church can conscientiously recede. And now, the result of the whole matter seems to me to be simply this. After such an expression of opinion on the part of the Church and University, I do not see how the noble Earl (the Earl of Belmore) can press forward his Bill; and in the interests of peace and conciliation I would venture to suggest that he should withdraw it.
  1260
  Before, however, lie withdraws it, let me take this opportunity of publicly expressing to him, on the part of the Irish Church, how much we feel indebted to him for having discharged the trust committed to him with all that energy, industry, and practical ability which has so conspicuously marked every stage of his public and political career. And let me add that, though he may now withdraw this Bill, lie can do so with the conviction that it has not been brought before this House in vain. It has been the means of calling' public attention to the grievance under which the Church of Ireland suffers as regards her Divinity School. It has shown, moreover, that the Church of Ireland is in earnest in seeking for a remedy—and for an immediate remedy too. It has been the means of submitting to this House for consideration and comparison various expressions of opinion respecting the important question at issue. It may not contain within itself the ultimate solution of the problem—but it has, as I believe, cleared the way for the adoption of a solution which may prove more generally acceptable to all concerned. and which will, I trust, tend to knit more closely in the future those ties of mutual good will and respect by which the Church. of Ireland and the University of Dublin have been so closely and so happily bound together in years gone by.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There can be no doubt considerable advantage has arisen from the discussion and consideration of this Dill that has taken place, as regards both the University of Dublin and the Irish Church. The introduction of the Dill has led to the exchange of opinion between the different persons who have interested themselves in this great question. But I do not think the exchange of opinion that has taken place upon the consideration of the different schemes that have been proposed has gone so far as, in my opinion, they might have gone, for I have no doubt that between this and the next Session of Parliament the consideration of these various schemes will go much farther; and very possibly an agreement may be come to on the more material points between the parties interested. I think that, under these circumstances, my noble Friend who introduced the

  1261
  Bill may very well adopt the course suggested by my noble and rev. Friend who has just spoken, and will withdraw the Bill.
  LORD CARLINGFORD: It appears to me to divide the connection which at present exists without absolute necessity, would be a great mistake; and I think that Trinity College is very reasonable in not allowing the Divinity School and its endowments to pass away from it without the necessity being proved. The reason, however, why I rise is a different one. I wish to point out a fact which is of extreme interest—particularly at this moment—in view of the subject that will come before us next week. Why is it that, in the opinion of so many, including the noble and learned Earl who has just sat down, there is no necessity for removing the Divinity School of the Church of Ireland from Trinity College? The reason is this — that although it has been opened to persons of all denominations, and, therefore, is in the position, we will say, of the University of Oxford; nevertheless, in Trinity College, Dublin, as well as at Oxford, there is, by universal admission, no reason to expect that any substantial change will take place in the denominational character of the University in respect of its Governing Body. It will, for any number of years, be mainly denominational, and consist of members of the Church of Ireland. I remember that on the former occasion when the Dill was introduced, I heard the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack allude to the alarm prevailing, and say that if at any time the Governing Body of Trinity College, Dublin, were to cease to be a denominational body attached to the Church of Ireland, the case might be very different; but that was a result, he added, which nobody need fear. It is that state of facts that throws considerable light on the University question in Ireland, and when we hear so much of Trinity College being thrown open by law to all denominations it is well that your Lordships should see how the thing works in practice.
  THE EARL OE DELMOREsaid, that in withdrawing the Dill he must say a few words as to what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford). He thought that in Trinity College people would be somewhat surprised at his remarks, but would receive them with a
  1262
  great deal of satisfaction; because they showed what a complete conversion the views of the noble Lord had undergone since he wads a Member of Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet in 1873. As regarded the accusation made against himself, that fie (the Earl of Belmore) was trying to injure Trinity College, it was only the other day that one of his late Colleagues on the Royal Commission had reminded him that they had recommended the very utmost in the way of a continuance of a close connection between Divinity School and the College, that they thought there was any chance of Parliament agreeing to. The reason why a Bill was preferable to a Queen's Letter in settling the matter was, that while the latter could alter the government of the School and set aside funds for its maintenance, it could not divest the Corporation of the College of its property in those funds, or create a trust.
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THE PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcomplained that certain despatches relating to Greece, and some also relating to Egypt, which had been distributed to Members of the House of Commons, and extracts from which he had seen in that morning's Times, had not reached him or any other noble Lord of whom he had inquired concerning them. He did not know whirls Member of the Government he ought to address a Question to upon the subject. Perhaps the noble Earl the Prime Minister might answer him?
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: In reference to these Blue Books, I think the Secretary of State, who is not present, would be the person best able to give information to the House. I can only say I have to complain of the same grievance as the noble Earl opposite. I have inquired in more than one quarter the reason why I have not been included in the distribution of these important and interesting Papers, and I have not obtained any satisfactory answer. I can assure the noble Earl that I have myself suffered from not receiving these Papers.

  VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 83.)
  (The Earl of Galloway.)
  VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 83.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
    Moved," That the Dill be now read 3a." —(The Earl of Galloway.)
    THEE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be read a third time this day three months, I will briefly explain my reasons for taking this course. It is within your Lordships' knowledge that in Scotland the valuation of laud is conducted under the authority of the Commissioners of Supply, who sometimes act in a general body and sometimes appoint a Committee for the purpose of first making an inquiry, ands then reporting the result of that inquiry to them. Hitherto, so far as I know, the valuation of land has been conducted in this manner with perfect satisfaction to everyone concerned. But now, this Bill which has been introduced into your Lordships' House contains a new principle. Its contains two provisions to which great objection has been taken. The first is this—that the Commissioners of Supply shall necessarily appoint a Committee to inquire into and determine the value of land; and the second, that the determinations of this County Valuation Committee shall, for all purposes, be deemed the determinations of the Commissioners of Supply by whom they are to be appointed; in other words, the proposal is that the powers of the Commissioners of Supply are to be taken out of their hands, and the sole power of valuation —there being no appeal to the general body of Commissioners of Supply—shall be transferred to a Committee, the number of which is not to exceed 20. Now, I wish to ask your Lordships for what reason is this Bill introduced—for surely there ought to be some reason for making a proposal of this sort? In the first place, who has complained? I am not aware that at any meeting of the Commissioners of Supply any complaint has been made, or that the other House of Parliament has been asked, by any meeting, to adopt a Bill similar to this. We, in this House, have been equally unfortunate. There was no discussion of
    1264
    the measure on the second reading; and, at a later stage, when there was a discussion, and we put this question to the noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway)—" Who wants the Dill, and who brings it in? "—he answered—" Everybody wants it; " but when he was asked of whom " everybody " consisted? he was unable to tell them, or had been only able to name a single county, that of Lanarkshire. I do not know whether the noble Earl means to say that the County of Wigtownshire, in which he is very largely interested, wishes for this Bill; but, at all events, even if it does, there is a noble Earl in this House—a noble Earl behind me—who has also a very large interest in the County of Wigtownshire, and he is just as much at a loss to understand why this Dill is introduced as I am at this moment. The only reason given to us thus far is that the Lanarkshire Commissioners of Supply are an extremely numerous and un-manageable body. I am not prepared to dispute that proposition; on the contrary, all the little I know is in favour of it; for, for a considerable number of years, we were unable to obtain a Road Act for Scotland, because Glasgow and Lanarkshire were unable to arrange their differences. It is quite possible that this Dill will be found very convenient for the County of Lanark, en-abling them to take away powers from the Commissioners of Supply and intrust them absolutely to a Committee of their own body. But I would submit to your Lordships that because the Commissioners of Lanarkshire are an unmanageable body is no reason why you should deprive the Commissioners of Supply of every other county in Scotland of their powers. I should like to hear better reasons for this Bill than those that have hitherto been given. On the last occasion when the measure came before us, we were rather in a peculiar state of circumstances. After an interesting discussion, relating to the London Bridge Bill, your Lordships had disbanded yourselves—or, at least, the greater number had gone away, and there was a very thin House left. This matter came up for discussion; certain Amendments were proposed, and we hoped that my noble Friend opposite who has charge of the Bill (the Earl of Galloway) would have held out the olive branch to us; at all events, to some extent. He

    1265
    did not do so, however. He opposed our Amendments, and the only course left was to carry our objections to a Division. As the Division was taken under peculiar circumstances, I have taken the trouble to analyze it; and I find that in English and Irish Peers we on this side of the House were weak, for we had only two English Peers and one Irish, against 13 English and 6 Irish on the other side; but, on the other hand, of Scotchmen, who are the persons most interested, and who I think —without any disrespect to your Lordships—should be the best able to judge of this matter, we were relatively strong, because, whilst seven voted against us, four voted with us—the noble Lord who may be said to represent Lanarkshire being amongst the number. As to the others, I should like to make this observation—that I do not know whether this is a Government Dill or not, as we have never had a statement to that effect; but it was certainly singular the other night to see with what unanimity the Members of the Government, of whom there were a comparatively large number present, voted for the Bill. I do not know whether those Members of your Lordships' House who are not Scotchmen will sympathize with the grounds on which some Scotch Peers oppose the Bill to-night; but I should like to put this matter to Irish and English Peers in a way that would carry conviction with it. To Irish Members I would say, if there ever was a question of Home Rule this is one which can be most conveniently dealt with in that way. To Englishmen I would say, suppose a proposal were made to take away the power of the Justices of the Peace assembled in Quarter Sessions, and to appoint Committees of the Justices, to whom is to be intrusted absolutely the power of valuation without any appeal to the general body, or without its being necessary to obtain the approval of the general body of Justices assembled in Quarter Sessions, would your Lordships support that proposal, or would you not? That is really the whole ease, and I do not think it is necessary for me to add another word. If my noble Friend will consent to strike the words I object to out of the Bill, that may exercise some influence upon the course we will adopt. But so long as my noble Friend is determined that
    1266
    he will absolutely take away this power from the general body of the Commissioners of Supply, without giving some reason for doing so, the only resource left to those who are opposed to the proceeding is to protest against it in every way they can.
    Amendment moved, to leave out (" now ") and add at the end of the Motion (" this day three months ").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
    LORD BLANTYREpointed out that in Renfrew and other places the Commissioners of Supply appointed Committees to do their work, and from them there was an appeal to the Judge Ordinary. The measure was only following out the general practice adopted in Scotland; therefore, he could not see why the third reading should be opposed. Believing that the measure would give general satisfaction in Scotland, he trusted their Lordships would agree to the third reading.
    LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he could not say anything of the Bill from the Home Rule point of view; but, as a Scotch proprietor, he had been asked by the Convener and a great many of the members of the Commissioners of Supply of the County of Ayrshire to vote against the Bill.
    THE EARL OE ROSEBERY: I had hoped that when the noble Earl moved the third reading of the Bill lie would have given us some other testimony in its favour besides the single County of Lanark. There are, as your Lordships I are probably aware, annually two meetings of Commissioners of Supply of each county, and at these meetings it is the custom to consider all matters affecting the welfare of their county, and to petition for or against any Bill before Parliament, according to circumstances. If there is this unanimity on the part of the Commissioners of Supply in Scotland in favour of this Dill, the noble Earl would, no doubt, have received many Petitions from these Commissioners of Supply in its favour. If the noble Earl has not such Petitions, it seems to me clear that there is no wish amongst the Commissioners of Supply for it. The noble Earl may also tell us whether this is a Government measure or not? This is a matter of some importance to us, and it will be gratifying to the

    1267
    feelings of some Members of the House if some Member of the Government will condescend to give an opinion upon the Bill.
    THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, if it had not been that I have been so distinctly appealed to by the noble Earl who has just sat down I should not have trespassed on your Lordships' time. But before I answer the more personal and pertinent question, as the noble Earl has styled it, I will mention one or two reasons to show why I think this a very useful measure. In the first instance, the Commissioners of Supply, it has been correctly stated, represent some hundreds of thousands of annual value in Scotland, and in the County of Lanark the Commissioners of Supply number no less than 750, in the County of Perth 200, and in Forfarshire over 150; and I think it must commend itself to your Lordships' knowledge that matters which are dealt with and relegated to the decision of a Committee are far better dealt with than matters which are deliberated upon by bodies numbering 750 or even
    200. Your Lordships may easily conceive that in such large numbers the deliberate and judicial character must be, to a great extent, lost and put upon one side; and it really is thus with regard to the meetings of the Commissioners of Supply, that they have themselves found that it is impossible to carry on the business properly by so large a body, and they have adopted the only course they could adopt, that of relegating the powers of the whole body to a Committee. They set themselves on one side, and relegated their powers to a Committee for their own convenience. But their proceedings might at any time be set aside on the ground of illegality, and on that ground it is advisable that such a measure as this should be passed. With regard to the 4th and 5th clauses of the Bill, which give a statutory character and authority to the Committees, they are modelled on the 39th and 40th of the Queen, which established, with regard to licences in Scotland, precisely the same Committee as that which we propose in regard to valuations. These are some of the reasons which I think ought to influence your Lordships in passing the Bill. I must protest altogether against the doctrine that it is net advisable to pass the measure unless the
    1268
    whole of Scotland has petitioned in its favour. The fact that the people of Scotland have not petitioned against it must be taken to be a very important one, because the Scotch people generally know what they are about and what is to their advantage, and seems conclusive that they are generally satisfied with the proposals of the Bill. The noble Earl opposite has no right to imagine that your Lordships will take a different view of the matter from that which was taken in the House of Commons, and with which Scotland was perfectly satisfied. One word more as to the character of this Bill. The noble Earl opposite spoke of this Bill as if there was some mystery about it. I can assure him that there is no mystery whatever. It is not a Government Dill; but it has received the assent and cordial approval of the other House of Parliament, and also of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whose duties are more particularly connected with Scotland; and if the noble Earl is in the least degree doubtful as to the accuracy of my statement, I will clear up that doubt by telling him the names of the three Gentlemen whose names are on the back of the Bill, and I will leave the House to decide as to whether those three names indicate anything of a Government character about the measure. The first name is Sir Windham Anstruther, the second is Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, and the third Sir Graham Montgomery.
    TEE EARL OF AIRLIE: No doubt, my Lords, the Bill will suit very well the County of Lanark, in which the noble Duke has told us there are 750 Commissioners of Supply, and that that body is so large and unmanageable that they are obliged, in order to get their work done, to take the illegal course of appointing Committees. This may be a very good reason for a permissive Bill; but the fact that this Dill is a very convenient one for the County of Lanark is no reason why it should be equally convenient for the rest of Scotland, nor why they should force each county to appoint a Committee of the Commissioners of Supply to determine questions of valuation, limiting their number of members to 20. In other counties the Lord President spoke of 150 and 200 as the number of Commissioners of Supply, and he mentioned Perth and Forfar as

    1269
    cases in which there was that number. But, as I am informed, there is an equally large number of magistrates in many cases in English counties who attend Quarter Sessions; yet there is no attempt to take from them their present duties and compel them to appoint Committees to perform some, at least, of their work. In the county with which I am connected there are 300 or 400 Commissioners of Supply, and at one time a Committee was appointed to assist the assessors; but it was found that they could do as well without it, and no Committee was now appointed. I must take exception to what the noble Duke said, when he argued that this Bill should be approved because the whole of Scotland had not petitioned against it. Everybody knows that Bills such as this pass without public notice; you have heard how it passed through the House of Commons; and, in fact, till this Bill came up to your Lordships' House, I am very certain many of you were entirely ignorant with regard to it. The Lord Lieutenant of the County of Forfar, who pays great attention to Public Business, had not heard of it; and many other noble Lords, even those connected with Scotland were perfectly ignorant of it. I cannot, therefore, admit the validity of the answer that has been given by the noble Duke. While, however, I object to the plea of the noble Duke in favour of the measure, I am bound to express my satisfaction that he has not indulged in remarks of the rather contemptuous and disparaging kind such as he used the other night when he spoke of the manner in which the Commissioners of Supply discharged their duties. Whatever may be said about these bodies in other counties, I am bound to say, with regard to those in the counties with which I am connected, that their meetings are conducted with order and in a business-like manner. If my noble Friend who moved the rejection of the measure (the Earl of Camperdown) goes to a Division I shall support him.
    THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I cannot see what objection there is to this measure. I have been listening with great attention to what has been said by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Airlie), and the objection he seems to feel is that it is Proposed to appoint a special Committee of Commissioners from among them-
    1270
    selves, by whom the appeals should be heard, and that that would be taking the power out of the hands of the Commissioners. But what would be the result? You will have a small manageable body who would go into the matter, rather than a body consisting of a large number who do not go into the matter. I know, from my own personal experience in some counties, that, numerous as these bodies are, it is very often difficult to get Commissioners of Supply together to hear these appeals, and we often have to wait a considerable time. There is another objection to the present system—that it is not entirely free from abuses. I have heard cases—I do not mean to say recently—but I have heard of more than one case where efforts have been made to induce certain Commissioners of Supply to attend, because they were supposed to be friendly either one way or the other, when the appeals were to be heard before them. I have had great experience myself in the conduct of the business by the Commissioners of several counties; and I should say that on the whole the necessity for appointing particular Committees for the purpose contemplated by the Bill is very obvious, and that the Bill will tend very much to the proper and expeditious conduct of business. The fact is, that in some counties Committees were already appointed who reported to the general body, and in every instance the decisions of these Committees have been accepted at once as thoroughly satisfactory. My impression decidedly is that if this Bill is passed it will be beneficial to Scotland. There is one more remark called for in dealing with the objections to the Bill—namely, the absence of sufficient Notice. But, by looking at a copy of the Bill, I find that in December, 1878, it was laid on the Table of the House of Commons. The Bill must, therefore, have been before every meeting of Commissioners of Supply in every county in Scotland at the meeting of the 30th April last. That this was the case I have no doubt; yet we have not heard of a single county having expressed an opinion adverse to it.
    On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 66; Not-Contents 29: Majority 37.

    CONTENTS.

    Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.)

    Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

    Bagot, L.

    Richmond, D.

    Blantyre, L. [Teller.]

    Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

    Abergavenny, M

    Hertford, M.

    Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

    Amherst, E.

    Bathurst E.

    Cloncurry, L.

    Beaconsfield, E.

    Colchester, L.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Colville of Culross, L.

    Belmore, E.

    Cottesloe, L.

    Bradford, E.

    Crofton, L.

    Cadogan, E.

    de Ros, L.

    Doncaster, E. (D. Bucclench and Queensberry.)

    De Saumarez, L.

    Foxford L. (E, Limerick.)

    Dundonald E.

    Gordon of Drumearn, L

    Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

    Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

    Harrowby, E.

    Hampton, L.

    Lucan E.

    Harlech, L.

    Manvers, E.

    Kenlis, L. (M. Head-fort

    Mar and Kellie, E.

    Mount Edgcumbe, E.

    Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

    Nelson, E.

    Lilford, L.

    Powis, E.

    Norton, L.

    Ravens worth, E.

    Penrhyn, L.

    Redesdale, E.

    Plunket, L.

    Romney, E.

    Raglan, L.

    Rosse, E.

    Silchester, L. (E. Long-ford.)

    Stanhope, E

    Bridport, V.

    Skelmersdale, L.

    Cranbrook, V.

    Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) [Teller.]

    Herding, V.

    Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

    Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)

    Leinster, V. (D. Leinster)

    Walsingham, L.

    Melville, V.

    Windsor, L.

    Strathallan, V.

    Winmarleigh, L.

    Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

    Arundell of Wardour, L.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Devonshire, D.

    Hammond, L.

    Hamner, L.

    Northampton, M.

    Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

    Airline, E. [Teller.]

    Leigh, L.

    Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

    Lyttelton, L.

    Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

    Clarendon, E.

    Cowper, E.

    Oranmore and Browne, L.

    Dartrey, E.

    Granville, E.

    Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

    Kimberley, E.

    Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

    Powerscourt, V.

    Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

    Aberdare, L.

    Balfour of Burleigh, L.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

    Stratford, L. (V. Enfield.)

    Carlingford, L.

    Sudeley, L.

    Foley, L.

    Truro, L.

    Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT— STUDY OF AGRICULTURE.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
    EARL GRANVILLEasked, If the Lord President can give any information as to the progress and success of the measures recently taken by the Science and Art Department for the encouragement of the principles of agriculture in this country? The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel sure that my noble Friend, who combines presiding over the Department of Science and Art with a great interest in the agriculture of England and Scotland, will not object to the Question which is on the Minutes in my name. The depression which exists in agriculture must make everyone more alive to the importance of all things which can contribute to its future prosperity. There are different opinions as to some of the causes of the depression and as to the character of possible remedies—there can be none as to the advantage of improved and more diffused agricultural knowledge. It is one of the uses of adversity to make all concerned more alive to such needs. I was lately at a great meeting of the Iron and Steel Institute. There was an immense attendance of the representatives of an interest which has been depressed for some years. One of the original members was much struck with the contrast of the apathy amounting to contempt which was shown at the early meetings of the Association, when scientific suggestions were made, with the intense interest shown by all this year in everything which tended to give scientific information of a mechanical or chemical character as to improvements which might be introduced into the manufacture of iron and steel. It is probable, and most desirable, that the present agricultural distress may turn the attention both of landowners and of land occupiers more to the subject. I believe that the want of publicity as to the agricultural examinations conducted by the Science and Art Department is in itself an evil. Great as is the number of enlightened landowners in this Assembly, I have some doubt whether the majority know of these examinations, or are aware that more than 2,000 candidates have successfully passed them; though it ought to be a matter of pride to the Scotch and Irish Peers that more than

    1273
    two-thirds of these successful candidates are Irish or Scotch. I wish means could be devised for giving greater publicity to these examinations and to the names of those who are the successful candidates. A farmer who goes to the expense and to the enlightened trouble of preparing his sensor these examinations, not unreasonably thinks that this distinction, ceteris paribus, entitles his children to some preference in obtaining farms from the best landlords. There is another reason which gives great importance to these examinations and their results. In our great manufactories it is possible—though not desirable—that a very few persons, having brains, can direct the work of a great number of hands. This is not the case in agriculture. Knowledge to be nationally useful must be diffused; it must belong to a large number of agents—of farmers and of bailiffs. Now, it happens that the agricultural classes of the Department can be established even in very out-of-the-way districts, and can be made infinitely more useful and numerous than at present. I shall be quite satisfied with the success of my Question, if it creates a little more attention among individual Members of this House to the subject, and if it induces my noble Friend at the head of the Department to take steps for giving greater publicity to the examinations and to the names of successful candidates.
    THE PUKE OE RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, so far from complaining of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) for having put a Question to me on this subject, I am very glad that he has done so, because I hope the answer which I am able to give to it will show your Lordships and the country that the attention of this branch of the Science and Art Department has been usefully extended to those matters of instruction to which my noble Friend refers. There is no question that there is much more of science now imported into agriculture than formerly, and that there is a very considerable amount of interest taken in the chemical properties connected with the various manures which are used—a matter in respect to which the Royal Agricultural Society exerts itself very beneficially, and, through its agency, means are now adopted to ascertain that the manures which are sold contain the properties which they are supposed to have, and to
    1274
    test them if they should appear to be of a doubtful nature. Coming to the Question of the noble Earl, it was not till the end of 1875 that it was decided to add the principles of agriculture to the list of subjects towards instruction in which aid is given by the Science and Art Department. At the first examination, which was held in May, 1876, there were, of course, but few candidates—because the matter had not become generally known—the number was 150. By the next year—1877—we found that 72 classes had been established in the country, who sent up about 800 students to be examined. The following year the number of classes lied increased to 91, and 1,265 students were examined. At the examinations which were held on the 13th of May last, 147 classes were found to be established —20 in England, 16 in Scotland, and 111 in Ireland. There were 2,839 students under instruction, of whom 2,193 came up for examination. Of these, 1,244 passed in the elementary stage, 389 in the advanced stage, and 20went out with honours. It will thus be seen that a rapid and satisfactory progress is being made in this important subject. The Examiner, Professor Tanner, reports of the last examination—
    " Some of the papers examined are of very superior character, and in the highest degree satisfactory; in fact, the entire series of examination papers gives proof of a most important system of education in agricultural science being gradually established in the country, and of valuable instruction being imparted by the teachers who are acting under the Department."
    At the present time, a short course of instruction in the principles of agriculture is being given to a class of 50 selected teachers at South Kensington, of whom 25 are from English, 9 from Scotch, and 16 from Irish schools, all of whom have their expenses paid. In addition to this, free admission to the course has been given to all teachers who desire to attend. I have had drawn up in a tabular form the information which I have now briefly given to your Lordships. There are, besides, two or three reports of the examinations; and it may, I think, meet the views of my noble Friend, if I lay those Papers on the Table in a printed form to be circulated among your Lordships.
    THE MARQUESS or HUNTLYrose to thank the noble Duke for what he had

    1275
    said, and for having, in adding this new branch to the duties of the Department, so far acceded to the recommendations of the Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. He hoped the allowances given in the case of selected teachers would be extended to the teachers generally who were anxious to qualify themselves for imparting instruction in agriculture, and so enabling their pupils to pass the examination provided by the Department. It would be impossible for teachers at great distances—from the North of Scotland, for instance—to attend lectures at South Kensington, unless they received assistance to do so. He could assure the noble Duke that the action of the Government in this matter was very much appreciated through the whole of the rural districts. He did not ask for undue credit for the Central Chamber; but when the noble Duke issued his Circular, the Chamber sent out copies of it to the teachers and colleges interested in the subject, and from all these bodies they received expressions of very strong approval of the project.
    Then, on the Motion of The Earl GRANVILLE—
    Memorandum of the Science and Art Department, South Kensington, as to instruction in Agriculture: Ordered to be laid before the House.
    Return laid before the House accordingly, and to be printed. (No. 137.)

  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, who had given Notice to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in the event of the University Education (Ireland) Dill passing the House of Lords, and going down to the House of Commons, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in the course of its progress through that House, to propose or accept Amendments proposing that endowments or grants, in addition to those now given to the Queen's University, shall be made to the said University; also, whether Her Majesty's Government intend, during the passage of the said Bill through this House, to state names of members of Senate to be named by Her Majesty's Government?— said:—I really do not know whether
    1276
    there is any use in my putting this Question now, because I find that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) has already asked a Question having a similar intention. I think this is a somewhat unusual course, and somewhat inconvenient to the public, considering my Notice was on the Paper, and that the noble Earl had not given Notice of his intention to ask the Question. Had the noble Earl intimated to me his wish to ask the same Question, in his position I should have felt myself bound to defer to him. The noble Earl took the opportunity, the other day, of calling a Friend of mine to Order; but I do not think he was quite in Order or quite orderly, in asking the Question he has done. I need not read my Question, as it is before your Lordships. But I will, in a very few minutes, state the reasons for my asking why this Bill has been brought forward, very unexpectedly, by Her Majesty's Government? They were a very long time in expressing their opinion upon the Bill brought forward in " another place," and when they did do so it was adverse to the measure. If this Bill is brought forward by Her Majesty's Government, it is only just and fair that the whole intention of the Government should be expressed regarding it. So far as the noble and learned Earl explained the Bill which he laid on the Table, we all understand it perfectly clearly, and there is no difficulty in knowing what it means; but this is not the place where any origination of endowment could take place—at any rate, any endowment that would come out of the general taxation of the country. The noble and learned Earl might say that it was a matter for consideration in " another place," and that he had told your Lordships all that concerned you; but the entire principle of the Bill must depend upon the fact whether any endowment is to bed given or not. Supposing the grant to be made on the same principle as " result fees," surely that would be denominational endowment? and yet it would be extremely difficult to reject it. I think that, in that case, the Bill should have been introduced in that "other place," and not in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Earl that part of the Question. With regard to the other part of the Question—Whether the names of the Senate will be stated

    1277
    by Her Majesty's Government when the Bill is before the House?—them whole operation of the Bill will depend upon who are members of the Senate; and, therefore, I have thought it my duty to trouble you by asking the Question of which I have given Notice.
    EARL GRANVILLE: I think I am, to a certain degree, open to the complaint which the noble Lord has made against me, and I should like to explain. The Question, of which Notice was given by the noble Lord, was not in the form of the Question I thought it necessary to ask, and I was anxious to obtain an answer. I, therefore, framed a Question to which I thought an answer might be given, and I did not think that was the case with the Question of the noble Lord.
    THE EARL OE BEACONSFIELD: I will endeavour, if I possibly can, to extract some light from the Question of the noble Lord, which, indeed, seems founded on this principle — that the noble Lord, acknowledging the proposals of the Government, as embodied in the Dill which has been read a first time in this House, were perfectly clear, has endeavoured to obfuscate the subject by imputing to Her Majesty's Government the probable intention of introducing other matters quite different, and, indeed, in some degree, quite contrary, to the scope of the Bill. I really cannot find any difficulty in answering the Question of the noble Lord. The noble Lord wishes to know whether Her Majesty's Government, if the Bill which has been introduced in this House should happily pass your Lordships' House, and be introduced in the other House, are prepared to propose any scheme of endowment? Well, we are not prepared, under these circumstances, to propose any endowment. We hope that if the Dill passes this House it may also pass the other House, and that it will be, in its policy and general scheme, substantially that introduced into this House. With regard to the inquiry of the noble Lord as to whether Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to accept certain Amendments in the other House of Parliament? without in any way wishing to change the statement I have made, I can assure the noble Lord that there is no wish on the part of the Government to stand in the way of the noble Lord, or his Friends, in proposing any
    1278
    Amendment which they may think expedient. If the noble Lord is himself desirous of proposing some measure of endowment, or if he has communicated with other Friends in the other House of Parliament who wish to do so, I have not the slightest doubt their propositions will receive respectful consideration. But I hope that, in discussing this measure, noble Lords will not impute to Her Majesty's Government any other measure or policy than that which, all must acknowledge, has been placed before the country by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack with a lucidity which could not be exceeded. It may be assumed that Her Majesty's Government, whether in this House or in the other House of Parliament, will ask the opinion of Parliament regarding the Bill they have introduced.
    House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.