Lords Sitting of 14 July 1879

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Land Titles and Transfer [No. 145].
PRIVATE BILL—Report—London Bridge now London Bridge Approaches *.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Customs Buildings* (146); Slave Trade (East African Courts) * (147),
Second Reading—Marriages Confirmation (Her Majesty's Ships) * (124).
Committee—Report—Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875) Amendment* (127); Civil Procedure Acts Repeal * (132).
Report—University Education (Ireland) (134).
Third Reading—Wormwood Scrubs Regulation* (128), and. passed.

BRENTFORD AND ISLEWORTH TRAMWAYS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."
  LORD TRUROmoved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that the population of the district was insufficient to support the line, and that there was no traffic of sufficient extent to make it remunerative. The line was only the middle part of a projected line, the two extremities of which had been rejected. It was, moreover, of such a length—one mile and a few chains—as to render it unavailable for any useful purpose, and the road on which it was to be constructed was only 24 feet in the broadest part, and 17 feet in the narrowest. Therefore, a tramway on such a road would be an obstruction and inconvenience.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)asked how it was that the parties who objected to the Bill had not appeared to oppose it before the Select Committee?
  LORD TRUROsaid, the parties who objected to its construction had no locus standi, and, therefore, had been unable to appear against it. He moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)thought that after

  273
  the statement of the noble Lord further consideration of the measure was desirable.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SLAVE TEADE—SOUTH EAST COAST OF AFRICA.—OBSERVATIONS.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there was a matter of great interest with regard to which the public would be glad to have some more information than they possessed at present. He referred to the Treaty with the Sultan of Zanzibar for the suppression of the Slave Trade in that part of the African coast over which his influence extended. It was known that though the Sultan had at first refused some pressure to induce him to agree to the Treaty, yet that since his agreement to the Treaty he had not only fulfilled its conditions to the letter, but he had gone beyond them. If the Government could give some decided information on the point, it would give satisfaction to the country.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There can be no doubt that the persuasion which has been brought to bear upon the Sultan of Zanzibar in this matter is one of the most successful operations on record. The Sultan's conversion to the noble Lord's views has been complete. The Sultan signed a Treaty, and since that he has given a most hearty and cordial co-operation in the suppression of the Slave Trade in those regions. We have acknowledged this conduct on the part of the Sultan on several occasions, and recently by presenting him with a considerable number of Enfield rifles—the substantial form in which we have recognized his thorough good faith. But I merely refer to this as showing that we are not insensible to the valuable assistance we have received from the Sultan, and let me add that if slavery is ever to be completely suppressed there, it will, no doubt, be owing mainly to his co-operation.

TREATY OF BERLIN—EVACUATION OF THE PROVINCES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in rising to call attention to the Correspondence on the affairs of Turkey and the present position of matters with reference to the
  274
  Russian evacuation of the territory on this side of the Pruth, and to move an Address to Her Majesty on the subject, said: My Lords, I know how hard it is to draw attention to the subject of this Notice when the mind of Parliament is agitated by another set of circumstances. At present, except upon South Africa, the grief it has occasioned, the vicissitudes it offers, nearly everyone is doomed to find unwilling ears, or make unwelcome observations. I will, therefore, pass at once to a few details, which may be easily recalled, and which, at least, show that the topic now before us is appropriate and necessary to the moment. It is now the 14th of July. On the 3rd of August, the whole of the foreign territory occupied by Russian Armies ought to be evacuated. Nothing has been said of late as to their movements. The journals are nearly silent with regard to them. According to a paragraph which has reached me from Constantinople, so late as the 25th of June two regiments were still in East Roumelia. Whether the great body are there, or in Bulgaria, or concentrated between the Danube and the Pruth, if known at all, is only known to the Government. My Lords, we should remember, here, the evacuation had two stages, according to the 22nd Article in the Treaty of Berlin. The first stage was not completed at the period assigned for it. I cannot venture to repeat what has been said before in this House upon the subject, or go back to a controversy with which, perhaps, your Lordships are fatigued; but the more it is examined the clearer it becomes that, at the end of nine months, East Roumelia and Bulgaria ought both to have been quitted. Such, I am convinced, was the original impression of the Government, as it appeared to be the language of their Representatives and organs. A deficiency having occurred upon the first stage, not only suggests a deficiency upon the second, not only offers a temptation to it, not only raises a specious argument in favour of it—which it would be imprudent to exhibit—but really makes it harder to avoid it. If Russian troops had not remained beyond the legal time within the territory of the Sultan, the three months allotted as a margin would have more easily sufficed to march across Roumania, as the Treaty contemplated, or, if that method was preferred, to gain

  275
  Odessa from a port of embarkation. On the whole, then, there is little reason to anticipate the final exit on the 3rd of August, without new efforts to obtain it. The Address which I submit, although no censure is involved in it, would be an effort of this kind. It would unavoidably sustain the efforts which the Government are making, or hasten those they are preparing. Had something of the kind been done in the middle of April, we should probably have now been in a different situation. But it would then have had the aspect of gratuitous, and thus of hostile, admonition. It is now dictated by experience of something which has happened, and of something we regret. My Lords, although I have not spoken very long, the whole case is now, in some degree, before your Lordships. Everyone can see that the observance of the Treaty on the 3rd of August, after the damage it incurred on the 3rd of May, is, prima facie, improbable. But doubt may possibly arise as to the importance of delivering the territory, whether it is termed Roumania, or Moldavia and Wallachia, at the stipulated period. Men may ask whether it is worth while to be tenacious, however justly, on the point, after the great events and hazards they appear to have surmounted? The answer is—that the War of 1854 was brought about by nothing but the occupation of the Danubian Principalities. When that occupation ceased peace might have been negotiated, although a separate attempt, a new departure, was resolved on. The alliance of France, Sardinia, and Great Britain, the Expedition which left our shores, the resolution to embark on war after an interval of 40 years—these new and mighty elements of policy—had, as their immediate aim, to clear from Russian Armies the Danubian Principalities; although, according to the Czar, those Armies were not directed against the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, any more than the existing ones profess to be. Indeed, it is remarkable that on the day "when Russia passed into Moldavia in 1853, as Mr. Kinglake, the historian, has mentioned it, the four Powers, then acting together, sent out their protest to discountenance the movement. We have, therefore, their authority, with that of Lord Clarendon, Count Cavour, and Napoleon III.—who cannot be forgotten in this country—for main-
  276
  taining that the occupation of the Danubian Principalities—whatever object is assigned to it, whatever mask it may assume—is not a state of things which Europe can assent to. If it was dangerous in 1853, it is now far more so. At that time, the line of the Danube was protected by considerable Armies, with so great a Commander as Omar Pasha to direct them. Beyond, there was a quadrilateral of fortresses, of which Silistria made itself immortal. An Army of the present Czar, in the Danubian Principalities, has nothing to intercept a march upon Sophia, unless it is a new Bulgarian Militia, which his policy has organized. Diplomatists and strategists would equally admit that the occupation of the region can less than ever be regarded with indifference. Indeed, we should remember that if it lasts a day beyond the 3rd of August a European war is justified. What justifies a war is not certain to produce a war; but it involves a fatal bar to the tranquillity so requisite to every branch of industry and commerce at this moment. My Lords, it is now worth while to reflect upon the many interests, the many recollections, which tend to a delay of the withdrawal, unless your Lordships counteract them. One ground of the reluctance to be reckoned on is connected with the position of Austria in Herzegovina and Bosnia. I leave the House to reason on the subject. To pass on, influence at Bucharest has long been assiduously cultivated at St. Petersburg. To sway the counsels of Tirnova or Sophia is a newer and, perhaps, a keener aspiration. To govern indirectly at Constantinople was an aim of Russia long before, and cannot be renounced when she has nearly been established in that capital. These objects all suggest to her delay in the withdrawal. It is encouraged by the many triumphs over the rest of Europe her Government has recently obtained, whether in luring towards her Continental States which had formerly opposed her; or in suspending wholly the resistance of this country to her efforts; or in finding zealous partizans among the authors of the War in the Crimea; or in proving the futility of Treaties to restrain her from encroachment; or in gaining at Berlin, twice over, nearly all that she was seeking; or in reducing the balance of power to a collapse unparalleled in

  277
  history. Another strong consideration for the delay of the withdrawal arises from, what is going on in South Africa. We have there, apparently, a Force as large as went out in 1854, however different may be the objects in their magnitude. We have there the military leader whom the public is most inclined to depend on. We have there the passions and the energies which any other struggle would require; and there we seem to be exhausting all the spirit of the country. Last of all, delay of the withdrawal is encouraged by the inevitable lassitude the Eastern Question has occasioned in the Legislature, after attention has been so long, exclusively, and painfully devoted to it. If any other proof is wanted of the Russian disposition, the Treaty of San Stefano reveals it. The Treaty of San Stefano includes an occupation of a year beyond the length eventually conceded in the Treaty of Berlin. But the Correspondence of this Session—which the Notice has adverted to—is one continued illustration of the tendency to enlarge the Treaty of Berlin into the Treaty of San Stefano. If thus, my Lords, the risk we have to deal with is established, an Address of the kind which I submit must prove at once that a large class in the United Kingdom—and not an unenlightened one—regard the matter with solicitude. Indeed, the very language of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury, when he came back from Berlin, would be sufficient to defend it. At that time, the noble Earl, according to the ordinary channels, stated as the great political conclusion to which he had been led by so remarkable a Congress was that the language of Great Britain ought to be more distinct as regards the line of action she desires to promote upon the Continent. No doubt, the lesson has had many illustrations. Had her language been more distinct in 1853, it is notorious that the costly struggle which ensued might have been easily avoided. Had her language been more distinct in 1873, the three Powers would have paused before advancing in their scheme against the independence of the Ottoman Empire. In 1877, the lesson was repeated. Had the language been more distinct some months ago, Russian troops might not have lingered after the 3rd of May in East Roumelia
  278
  and Bulgaria. Unless it is now distinct, you have not any reason to assume that an occupation will be terminated as you wish, when there are keen and nearly irresistible temptations to prolong it. But, still, it may be asked whether this House ought to declare itself? My Lords, during five years the Eastern Question has perpetually occupied it. Numerous debates have taken place, and they have been initiated in a great diversity of quarters. Some noble Lords have come forward as the special patrons of the races subject to the Porte, some as the converted and little-qualified adherents of St. Petersburg, some as the avowed supporters of what was done in 1856, so far as it was possible to guard it. But at no time in a drama so eventful has the House been permitted to exercise the influence over arrangements without which discussion seems to be a mere parade of knowledge and of argument. So far as my memory recalls it, in the whole transaction which has occupied us in so many of its phases, nothing has been brought about as yet, or been averted by your Lordships. Neither as regards the vassal Principalities, the Herzegovinian insurrection, the more momentous conflict which ensued, the settlement which followed it, has the voice of this House been fruitful or effective. At length, it may exert itself in such a way as to promote the deliverance of all the European Powers from a considerable peril. Had the Government succeeded in effecting the first departure at the proper time, there would be, of course, no ground of interference from your Lordships. As they did not succeed—however little we reproach them for it—such interference is legitimate. It is the conclusion of experience; it is the step of prudence; there is not any title to resent it. It would be a fitting close to the long, the agitating, but hitherto the unproductive toil your Lordships have devoted to the subject. It may be asked, perhaps, still more particularly in what manner the Address would tell on Russian counsels, should it be the pleasure of your Lordships to adopt it? Looking to what is known of the interior, and what our meditation would suggest to us, there are probably two parties at St. Petersburg—one desirous to close, the other to extend the occupation. One would dwell on the

  279
  recent discontent, not less alarming because deprived of any regular expression, the commotion which has taken place, and the transition which appears to be preparing, as a reason for bringing home the Forces of the Empire. The other may refer, with greater accuracy than I have done to-night, to all the grounds of distant policy which are calculated to prolong the tenure we object to. Except upon particular occasions, divided judgment seems to be the chronic state of Governments and Empires. The action of the House would clearly strengthen the Party who support the execution of the Treaty. It would throw weight into the scale, which at this moment may only want a little to establish the preponderance we aim at. By this view, also, an answer may be given to the only possible objection—namely, a reluctance to evince distrust in the governing authority of Russia. Reluctance to evince distrust when long experience creates it, is not the most intelligible part of statesmanship and wisdom. But let this be forgotten. Let it be granted that on special I grounds the governing authority of Russia is entitled to the deep consideration of the Legislature. But if the Sovereign of Russia is forced to oscillate between two sets of contradictory advisers, to uphold the more enlightened set is thoroughly in accord with the imagined obligation. It is a boon, because it tends to shorten painful indecision. It is a boon, because it tends to bring about the choice of safety and of honour. It is a favourite topic in some quarters that for many errors into which Russian policy is drawn the ruling power is not to be considered as accountable.- The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Marquess of Salisbury) not long ago explained that much of what we are accustomed to protest against arises in that country, because no Department is acquainted with the conduct of another. It has been often pointed out that military leaders distinctly arrogate a power independent of the Government they theoretically act under. Distrust of Russian policy is not, therefore, distrust of the legitimate authority, but of something undefined—of some thing dark, of something surreptitious, which that authority is not sufficient to contend
  280
  with and to master. But if, upon the other hand, men do hold the governing authority responsible for all that has been done from the Crimean War down to this moment, they certainly are not required to withhold any step which is calculated to enforce the Treaty of Berlin and to release the territory occupied, because it may not be acceptable at St. Petersburg. The noble Marquess may point out that movements have taken' place which insure the retreat by the 3rd of August, although they have been studiously concealed from us. He will not probably recur to the position that Treaties are mechanically sure to execute themselves; that their spontaneous force in the discharge of obligations may be thoroughly relied on; that they do not want the slightest vigilance to guard them. Prepared to listen to anything by which it may be shown that such a course is not essential to its object, I move the Address of which I have given Notice.

  Moved that an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to exercise her diplomatic influence in the manner best calculated to secure the complete evacuation by Russian troops of all territory on this side of the Pruth, whether belonging to the Sublime Porte or to Roumania, at the time stipulated in the Treaty of Berlin.—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I trust I shall be able to give a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord; but I am not quite certain of the subject, for I am not absolutely sure what the points of the noble Lord's observations were. He was exceedingly discursive, wandering over a wide extent of territory. The number of troops we have in South Africa, the operations of Omar Pasha in 1853, the Crimean campaign, the state of Russian politics, the division of parties in that country, and the proceedings which took place at Berlin—all successively had the honour of his attention. I am not quite certain whether I have accurately summarized the points which the noble Lord wished to bring before the House. But as I understand it, it was this—that the Russians had been guilty, as he expressed it, of inefficiency in the evacuation of the territories referred to, and that in consequence we could not trust them for the future; and

  281
  he fears that they will not fulfil the Article of the Treaty of Berlin which binds them to evacuate all the territory West of the Pruth by the 3rd of August. As I understand, the noble Lord's solicitude is engaged mainly upon the position of Roumania, and the probability that if Russian Forces continue to occupy that Province there will be danger that this country would be involved in war. I do not think there is much danger of any continuous occupation of Roumania; because, by the information I have received within the past two or three days from Mr. Comberbach, the acting Representative of Her Majesty in that Principality, I learn that there is no Russian soldier within the confines of Roumania at this moment. With regard to the fulfilment of that Article of the Treaty of Berlin which binds Russia to have none of her soldiers West of the Pruth by the 3rd of August, of course, I have not the gift of prophecy, but I can only say I have received the most positive and distinct assurances from the Russian Government, and when I saw Count Schouvaloff the other day he repeated these assurances in the most distinct manner. All the information I have received from Her Majesty's Representatives in these countries, though I am unable to say what is the exact number of Russian troops West of the Pruth, leads to the belief that they are comparatively few, and that they are rapidly moving to the ports from which they are to embark. I understand that Philippopolis was yesterday to have been entirely denuded of all the Russian troops there, and that they are moving upon Varna and Bourgas, where they are to embark. All the indications which have reached me lead me to believe that by the stipulated time the Russian troops will have left all the territory West of the Pruth, and I have received no indication pointing in an opposite direction. That is the only answer I can give. The noble Lord appears to attach more force to these Motions than they really possess. He is pursued by remorse because he did not, in April last, bring forward a Motion of this kind, in which case he thinks the period of the evacuation would have been materially altered. I think it my duty to convey some consolation to the discontented mind of the noble Lord.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid he had never made such a statement,
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If he had made the Motion, the noble Lord believes the course of things would have been materially altered. However, I can assure him that if he had made any number of Motions things would have been not in the least different, and I do not believe this Motion will have much effect in influencing the movement of the Russian troops or asserting the policy of the Government. I think any Motion indicating an unnecessary tremor upon the part of the House had better not be put from the Woolsack, and, for my part, if it is put I shall say "Not-content."
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction from those who could speak with authority that the hostile population of Roumania were settling down into a state of tranquillity, and consequent prosperity, to a degree almost beyond what could have been expected by the most sanguine among us.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in reply, said, that no importance ought to be attached to the contemptuous manner in which the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was equally disposed to treat his friends and his opponents. The noble Marquess had at first attributed to him (Lord Campbell) remorse; but, in point of fact, the self-reproach which the noble Marquess had incurred, for too easy acquiescence in the first departure from the 22nd Article could alone explain the uncalled-for acrimony he had introduced into the discussion. The confidence of the noble Marquess in the opinion that the Russian Army would pass over the Pruth by the 3rd of August did not seem to be greatly backed by the admission that it had not yet entered the territory of Roumania. But no one was so much interested in the final execution of the Article as the noble Marquess. While he declared himself convinced that the Address proposed would not conduce to that result, the House would naturally be unwilling to adopt it. If the retreat by the 3rd of August took place, the debate would have promoted it; if it did not, the responsibility of the Government would be much enhanced by the proceedings of that evening.
  Motion (by leave of the House) .with' drawn.

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 134.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 134.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments, read.
  Moved, "That the said Report be now received."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD EMLY: My Lords, it is, I think, unfortunate that this Bill, in its various stages, has not been put down as the first Order of the Business of the Day, and that, consequently, very little time has been allowed to your Lordships to discuss the measure thoroughly. I am not so presumptuous as to imagine that any suggestions of mine could have any weight with Her Majesty's Government; but still, as a witness, I may, perhaps, claim some authority as to what the grievance is under which those who conscientiously reject to reside in Trinity College or the Queen's Colleges suffer, and as to how far this Bill, if passed into law, will remove that grievance. As I wish to detain your Lordships for as short a time as possible, I will confine my observations, as far as I can, to the statement made by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack on Tuesday last. The noble and learned Earl claimed, as a merit for the Bill, that it allowed no affiliation of Colleges; and, secondly, that University Education could not be placed under the same amount of strict control as Intermediate Education can; and that a Conscience Clause could not be applied to it. Consequently, in the opinion of the Government, the principle of the intermediate schools could not be applied to University Education. The first of these propositions shows that the noble and learned Earl fails to comprehend the grievance with which he proposes to deal. The second, that, in his judgment, the only possible means of redressing that great grievance cannot be applied to it. I think I correctly sum up the result of Tuesday's debate, when I say that noble Lords on both sides of the House who took part in it advocated the principle of educational equality in Ireland—in other words, that the same educational opportunities should be open to those who, by conscientious convictions, are prevented from availing themselves of
  284
  the existing Universities which are enjoyed by their fellow-countrymen. I am not going at any length into the controversy as to whether this Bill would, if it became law, confer any benefit on those for whose relief it purports to be intended. I agree with my noble and learned Friend near me (Lord O'Hagan) that this Bill confers no benefit at all. It is quite true that the fees for non-resident students in Trinity College are 16 guineas a-year; but all the prizes and honours of Trinity College are open to those students; whereas, under this Bill, not a single prize or reward, such as the students of the Queen's Colleges enjoy, is open to students who are to be admitted to the new University. I ask whether this is a step towards educational equality? We are to be united with the Queen's Colleges, and to be as Pariahs—to carry about with us the marks of our inferiority. I believe, further, that the degrees of the London University would be more valued than degrees conferred by this new University; and though the noble and learned Earl says degrees cannot be procured in Ireland, except by the students of Colleges, whereas a Roman Catholic living anywhere may get degrees under the new University, he shows that he has not made even the faintest approach to understand what we want. My Lords, what we ask for is educational equality, and not the mere empty title of a degree. This is open to us now; but that robust formation of character, those ennobling associations, the concentration of each Professor with his own subject, can only be had in a College—unless you give College life and College training you give us nothing. Cardinal Newman, an authority than which none, I am sure, in the opinion of your Lordships, can be higher, somewhere contrasts the so-called University Education, which dispenses with residence and tutorial superintendence, and gives its degrees to any person who passes an examination in a wide range of subjects, with a University which had no Professors or administrators at all, and expresses the opinion that the latter would be more successful than the former in moulding and enlarging the mind. I am sure your Lordships' experience renders any lengthened argument on the subject unnecessary. A friend of mine, a man of great ability, who, though young, has

  285
  attained one of the highest positions in the country, went up for examination in Trinity College. He had received all the training which could be given to him in the country, and still he got no prize. After this he came to reside in Dublin, and studied under the Professor of Trinity College; and he for three successive years got every honour that was open to him. Turn to the calendar of the London University, and your Lordships will find, out of 18, 15 in the Bachelor of Arts' examinations for mathematics, who got the first places for their respective years, had an education at Oxford and Cambridge. If we look around, the same phenomenon presents itself. I assert, therefore, without fear of contradiction, that unless you give those who are excluded by conscience from Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges the means of having a College of their own, with richly-endowed Professorships, with libraries and museums, you do not place them on a level with their fellow-countrymen who enjoy those advantages. Examinations for those who have not had the opportunity of Collegiate Education are excellent as a supplement to a University system. They are the only ways of providing for minorities. But to offer such a system to the majority of the Irish nation, particularly when the minority have the better way provided for them, seems to me little less than trifling with a great subject. I agree with what the noble Marquess opposite said as to bit-by-bit reform. When the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the other House, intimated this Bill, I exhorted my Friends to accept it, if it should be found to contain any real concessions. But although it is a good thing to make any step on the road we wish to travel, I object to be led into a bye-path which terminates in a bog, where I am to have my legs and arms powerless, while those with whom I have to contend have full play of their limbs. I come now to the second point in which I take exception to the noble and learned Earl's speech. I adhere to the mode of settling this question I proposed some 13 years ago in the House of Commons. I wish to see the Irish Act of 1793, enabling a new College to be erected in the University of Dublin, so amended as to allow a Catholic College to be establishedthere. I should like to see the students of this
  286
  College vie with one another for University honours, associating together as the men of Oriel and Christ Church used to associate when I was at Oxford. This scheme seemed once likely to succeed. It was looked on with favour by many of the most distinguished men of Trinity College; but they have yielded to the seductive voice of Mr. Fawcett, and the day for its adoption, I fear, has passed, and I, therefore, have given my entire adhesion to the proposal suggested by the Irish Government, and accepted by the Catholics so entirely, that with honour they could not recede from it. In one word, the plan was to apply the principle of the Intermediate Education Act to University Education. It was intended to give power to the Senate of the University to be created, to limit the number of Colleges to be affiliated, and to allow no result fees to be paid for any but the students of affiliated Colleges. Thus, the teaching power, of which we have not a superabundance in Ireland, would have been concentrated, not scattered. I ask the noble and learned Earl to explain why there should not have been a Conscience Clause imposed on those two, or three, or four Colleges, and why every provision and control in the Intermediate Education Act should not have been applied to this? Would this plan have endowed religious education? Why, the Bill contained a direct prohibition to pay one halfpenny for religious education. Was this prohibition nominal merely, or was it real? Look at the safeguards by which it was surrounded. The Senate was to be lay and mixed, composed both of Catholics and Protestants; the subjects were to be fixed by the Senate; Examiners were to be appointed by the Senate; not a shilling could be paid except on account of passing an examination on subjects fixed before Examiners so appointed. Secular education is the article wanted, and secular education alone would be the article paid for. Are you responsible, my Lords, for the character of the establishment where you buy your clothes? Do you refuse to take your sugar or your tea, because it is produced in a slave-holding country? If the State gets that which- it asks for, I submit that it has no responsibility as to the character, religious or otherwise, of the factory where it is prepared. The noble and learned Earl recited my right hon.

  287
  Friend's (Mr. Gladstone's). strong denunciation of concurrent endowment. We have also the advantage of having Mr. Gladstone's strongly-expressed opinion that the principle of the scheme I am discussing in no way involves concurrent endowment. Last year, in a discussion on the Intermediate Education Bill, Mr. Gladstone used the following language:—
  "I do not feel, therefore, so far as I am concerned, seeing that I have never given direct or indirect support to the endowment of a Roman Catholic University, that I am involved, by assenting to the principle of this Bill, in any inconvenient consequences in assenting to University education in Ireland; while, at the same time, I can conceive that a large part of the practical grievance which I believe to exist in Ireland on the subject of University education in Ireland as it did exist six or eight years ago, when we endeavoured to remove it, may be removed by acting upon the principle of this Bill. Well, then. Sir, the principle seems to be in conformity with that for which we have long contended—that no man, on account of his religious opinions or preferences is, as to education, to be placed in a position of disadvantage as regards secular knowledge, or any of the honours and rewards which may he assigned to a secular knowledge by the wisdom of Parliament."—[3 Hansard, ccxli. 1499–1500.]
  We have, therefore, Mr. Gladstone's distinct denial that the principle of this scheme involves the consequences the noble and learned Earl attributes to it. The noble Earl the Prime Minister has received a declaration in favour of this scheme signed by every Catholic of position, professional or otherwise, in Ireland. It has, in its main features, received the support of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me put this question to you, my Lords. If the Presbyterians of Scotland laboured under the crushing grievance of which we complain—if the organs of the Government in Scotland had proposed a scheme for remedying this grievance—if the Leaders of the Opposition had shown themselves favourably disposed to it—if every Presbyterian in Scotland, from the Duke of Argyll to the smallest medical practitioner in the Highlands, had accepted it, and if it had been defeated by the agitation of a knot of Irish Catholics, would Scotland be a country very easy to govern? How can you expect loyalty in Ireland, if you adopt a course towards her which, if adopted there, would extinguish loyalty in Scotland? I am afraid, my Lords, that the course pursued by the Govern-
  288
  ment of raising expectations on this subject, and then dashing them to the ground by this Bill, which is hardly worth the paper on which it is printed, can have but one result. It will kindle again the smouldering embers of Home Rule, and it will revive and excite agitation in a country which, above all things, requires peace.
  LORD WAVENEYrose, and had commenced to address the House, when—
  EARL GRANVILLEinterposing, said: There are a great many noble Lords sitting with me on these Benches who think such an important question as that raised by the noble Lord (Lord Emly) deserves an answer of some kind or other from Her Majesty's Government. The other day I addressed to the Government what appeared to me a not unreasonable question, and I got from them absolutely no answer. My noble Friend, who has every right to speak, especially on a subject of Irish interest, has made a most telling speech on this question, and I am surprised that Her Majesty's Government should think it respectful to your Lordships' House to drop the subject without offering any remarks upon it at all. The noble Lord has given a distinct challenge with regard to a plan formerly proposed by the Government, and since entirely abandoned by them. It tempts me almost to think that there are such persons as Conservative Circassians; but I do trust Her Majesty's Government will consent to give an answer to the statement of my noble Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must first point out to the noble Earl the grave irregularity of which he has been guilty. I must say that I have never witnessed a greater irregularity in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord (Lord Waveney) behind the noble Earl (Earl Granville) got up, and had commenced his speech, when the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition rose in his place, not upon a point of Order, but because he thought fit to regulate the course which the debate should take. All I will say is that it would have been, and it will be, my duty to make some observations on the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Emly) at the proper time; but the noble Lord (Lord Waveney) was in the act of putting a Question, when he was interrupted by the noble Earl.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I was not aware that the noble Lord behind me was going to speak on the general question. I thought he was about to move an Amendment.
  LORD WAVENEYwas understood to ask whether ladies would be admitted to degrees under the Bill.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has, acting under a considerable misapprehension, been induced to take a course which I believe is not very usual in this or any other House of Parliament. The other night, when the noble Earl complains that no answer was given to his observations—referring, I believe, to me personally—he forgets that on that occasion his observations were personally addressed to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. Again, this evening, the noble Lord who introduced this subject (Lord Emly) particularly addressed his remarks to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and called upon him to explain a statement which he had made to the House before, and vindicate some assertions that he had made on the same occasion. It certainly appears strange that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition should blame the manner and the mode in which we think it wisest to allow the debate of this measure to proceed. I shall leave my noble and learned Friend to answer the questions that have been particularly addressed to him. But I must advert to the extraordinary speech of the noble Lord who introduced the discussion to-night. I can only say that I listened to that speech with amazement. Nothing of the Romance in which the noble Lord appeared to be indulging is known to me. We know nothing of this negotiation—nothing of these schemes or plans proposed by us—no proposal was ever authorized by me, either directly or indirectly, on the subject; and I do not know upon what authority he makes the statement which he has made to-night. I must, on my own part, entirely repudiate it—and I feel sure that my Colleagues would equally repudiate any knowledge of it. I think it is only due to the House that the noble Lord should give his authority for making it. If he made it on the strength of confidential communications, he must use his discretion as to the
  290
  course he may adopt; but, so far as I am concerned, I entirely free him from any awkward feeling he may have on that head. The whole narrative of the noble Lord appears to me, as far as I am individually concerned—and I believe I may speak also with the same clearness and firmness for my Colleagues—one which relates to circumstances of which we are ignorant; and I can only say that, so far as we are concerned, there is not the slightest foundation for the extraordinary statement which, according to his noble Leader in this House, has been a most effective speech. Certainly his statement is one which would very much tend to rouse the passions of your Lordships, and to cause a view of this important and interesting question to be taken for which there is no foundation, and which, to my mind, may occasion much inconvenience in the future discussion of this subject.
  LORD EMLYwas understood to say that he had not spoken of Her Majesty's Government, but of the Irish Government, and that he had himself seen the proposition to which he had referred. He repeated his statement, that, in his opinion, it was supposed in Ireland that the Government had adopted a Bill founded on that proposition, and it would have been highly dishonourable on the part of the heads of the Roman Catholics in Ireland if they had opposed a measure which they had themselves accepted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before I answer the statements in the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Emly), I hope your Lordships will allow me to make an explanation of the statement which I made on a former evening, and which, in some quarters, appears to have been misunderstood—I mean in reference to the Dublin University. In speaking of the Dublin University, I stated it was local in its operation; but I was not speaking in disparagement of the University—I meant, as is the case with the Durham University, that it was local in the sense of being mainly resorted to by the inhabitants of the Northern parts of the country, and I did not intend any opinion unfavourable to the great work in which the Durham University is engaged. I desire also to answer a question put to me by a noble Lord who

  291
  spoke second this evening (Lord Waveney). I may say that the Bill which we have introduced contemplates, in the preparation of the Charter, words almost identical with the words which are found in the Supplemental Charter of the London University with, regard to conferring degrees upon women. We propose that the Senate of this new University shall hold examinations and grant certificates and degrees; and it will, of course, be the duty of the Senate to make rules and regulations for that purpose, which it would be out of place to do in this Bill. The noble Lord who commenced the discussion (Lord Emly) said that the want of those whose interests he represented was not the power of obtaining degrees—that they had already by means of the Universities of Dublin and London—therefore, the noble Lord says this Bill confers nothing. Now, with regard to Dublin University, I have always understood that the argument of those whom the noble Lord represented was, that it was a grievance to be complained of that they should be obliged to obtain a degree from Dublin University. A degree can, no doubt, be obtained without residence from the Dublin University; but in order to do so it is necessary to make an annual payment, which amounts to almost as much as the fees of a moderate College; and two examinations must be passed in the year, which were not general examinations to ascertain general proficiency in literature, but to ascertain proficiency in the particular and specific Books which were required in the curriculum of Trinity College, and not in the curriculum of studies of those whom the noble Lord represented. As to the London University, no doubt, it can hold examinations in Ireland; but, in the first place, it is a matter of expense; and, secondly, it is a matter of finding centres at which a sufficient number of students can be collected for examination. Having denied that the difficulty of obtaining degrees was their grievance, the noble Lord went on to say that what those whom he represented wanted was a system of Collegiate training where there might be residence, with the advantage of having Professors who were able to conduct the training of residential Colleges of that kind. Nothing can be clearer than what that meant. I am not passing any opinion whether that is
  292
  desirable or not—I quite agree with the view of the noble Lord that a College, where there are residence and training in Collegiate life, is as superior to a University which merely examines and confers degrees as one kind of education can be to another. I am for the Collegiate system which prevails at Oxford and Cambridge; and I look upon a University which merely confers degrees without residence and training as a very inferior institution. But what does the demand of the noble Lord really amount to? "When he said that they wanted a system of Collegiate training, with residence and a staff of Professors, he means, of course, that they want money in order to provide those things—I will not call it endowment, but they want money. I can only repeat what, as I understand it, is the clear principle upon which Parliament is prepared to proceed—that a system of endowment and denominational Colleges is one which they are not prepared to accept. The lines upon which Parliament has proceeded hitherto, and the one on which it is prepared to proceed for the future, if we may judge from recent debates, as well as from long standing practice, are that demands for aid in favour of separate institutions in the form of endowments for denominational Colleges cannot be acceded to. I will now proceed to consider the mode by which the noble Lord proposes to get rid of this difficulty. He says, why not do what you did last year? Why not proceed upon the lines of the Intermediate Education Act; and he cites Mr. Gladstone as an authority. But, in calling in Mr. Gladstone as an authority for his proposal, let me say the noble Lord should have read a little further in the same speech than the quotation upon which he relies. If he had read a little further, he would have seen where the difficulty lies; because it is very singular that, although Mr. Gladstone's statement is in favour of the Intermediate Education measure so far as it relates to prizes and payments made to the student, he takes the objection that it might be said—and, evidently, that it ought to be said—that where you make payments, not to the students, but to the institutions which educate, you are running counter to the principle of abstaining from the endowment of denominational institutions. He says:—

  293
  "It is worth the while of the Government to consider whether there is any value in the contention that the Bill, in providing for the payment of fees to the managers of schools, would not go far to be regarded as payment to particular institutions."
  Then, as to the Conscience Clause, Mr. Gladstone said:—
  " If you confine your exhibitions and prizes to the young men, asking no question at all except as to their competence, you get rid of the whole difficulty as to the Conscience Clause."
  That has no place in this Bill, except in reference to schools where there are managers' fees. I would not refer to this, if it had not been said that Mr. Gladstone was in favour of extending to University Education the whole principle of the Intermediate Education Bill. The distinction is taken by Mr. Gladstone between two kinds of payments—the payment which goes for prizes and exhibitions directly to the student, and the payment which does not go to the student, but to the institution where the student is educated. My first answer, therefore, is, that if the noble Lord asks for payments which are to be made in the shape of prizes and exhibitions to the students, all I have to say is, what I said on a former occasion, that I do not consider this denominational endowment. I consider it to be a payment fairly made for the open advancement of education, without reference to denomination; but if he goes further, and says that what he wants is a subvention to enable residential Colleges to be set up or supported, and to go towards the payment of Professors in such Colleges—then, I say, the matter assumes an entirely different shape, and trenches upon what I understand to be the firm and settled principle of Parliament with reference to concurrent endowment. The noble Lord tells me that I have failed to point out the distinction between the arrangements, especially as regards a Conscience Clause, of the system of Intermediate Education and the provisions of the present Bill. The other night the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to refer to what he called my points of distinction between the University Education Bill and the Intermediate Education Act of last year; but in commenting on this the noble Lord omitted the gravest and most overwhelming distinction between
  294
  the two cases. I said the other night that the Act of last year was passed without the slightest reference to any particular school or schools in Ireland; that it was an Act intended to confer benefits on every school, north, south, east, and west, which might be able to send out students with a sufficient attainment in Intermediate Education. If any existing schools choose to use the provision of that measure they are entitled to do so; and if any new schools are set up they are privileged to do the same, their claims being the same—that they have pupils sufficiently trained. There is no intention, either avowed or intended, to confer the benefits provided by the Act of last year upon any particular schools, or upon the schools of any one denomination more than upon those of any other. But the case is altogether different with regard to the demands made on behalf of Colleges. There is no disguising the demand made by the noble Lord (Lord Emly) to-night, which is the demand always made—namely, "Here are two or three Colleges in Ireland which are denominational, and which are in want of funds for their support. We cannot ask you to make a grant of money to these Colleges; but we do ask you to make payments indirectly, which' to use the language of a noble Lord," will reach these institutions." Now, that is the first and overwhelming difference between the Act of last year and the Bill which the Government have now brought in. There was then not the slightest intention or desire to benefit any particular school. If they were to receive advantage it was to be openly on the same footing as others. But here you meet us with a demand which, if acceded to, would take the form of endowment; and it is asked for to benefit institutions which would be just as distinctly pointed at by the Bill were the demand complied with as if their names were set out one by one. I am asked what I consider the difference between a Conscience Clause applied to a College or University and a primary or intermediate school? There is all the difference in the world. If your University and Colleges were scattered all over the country and in every parish of every county, just as primary and intermediate schools are distributed, there would be a strong probability that they

  295
  would be resorted to by all persons of proper age in their immediate neighbourhood, and the protection of a Conscience Clause would be requisite—in order that no boy should be compelled in attending the school of his neighbourhood for the purpose of secular education should be compelled to take religious education along with which you must have a Conscience Clause. Then the Conscience Clause plays a perfectly intelligent and very useful part. It is useful and necessary, and has a most happy effect upon the diffusion of education through the length and breadth of the land. But what application could it have to a large College Bet up—say in Dublin—for the denominational education of the Roman Catholic youth of that city? It could have none at all. There is not the slightest chance—I would say it would be a moral impossibility to find anyone entering that College except members of the Roman Catholic faith. The institution would not be intended for anybody else, and it is admitted that there would not be the least probability or likelihood of anybody else entering its walls. Those who do not belong to the Roman Catholic faith prefer to go elsewhere. Therefore, to set up a protection of that kind—to set up a Conscience Clause—in an institution never visited by those whom you are to protect against its influence, is merely to proclaim a mockery. My Lords, I think it is, to say the least, throwing a little dust in our eyes to say that whatever proposal might be made with respect to a Conscience Clause in a residential and teaching University such as we are asked to provide would have any weight or application whatever. These are the answers I have to make to the noble Lord—and I am sorry if they are of a character less favourable to his views than he would have desired.
  LORD SELBORNE: Although my noble and learned Friend has told us what is the settled principle of Parliament, and although it may be true that Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons expressed some doubt whether the Bill of last year did not contravene that supposed principle, yet I must remind your Lordships that the House of Commons and this House passed that Bill, and that Mr. Gladstone himself did not oppose it. Therefore, it is proved by that
  296
  instance, either that Parliament has not established any such principle, or that it is not infringed by payments according to results in aid of schools of denominational education. You say that payments by results, which go directly to the institution and not to the individual student, trench upon the settled principles of Parliament as to denominational endowment. But is not that what has actually been done by the Intermediate Education Act? I distinctly protest, in the name of England, against the proposition. In England it is the settled practice for the State to give aid, through result fees, to denominational schools, both Church and Dissenting and Roman Catholic schools, all over the country. And, therefore, I take the liberty of saying that in whatever sense the principle of the noble and learned Earl may be true—and in some sense it is true—it is not true that the practice of Parliament is consistent with the view, that the encouragement of secular teaching in denominational institutions by State payments according to results, is equivalent to the direct endowment of those denominational institutions. It is a new extension of the principle, and contrary to anything yet laid down as a rule to Government by Parliament, to say that payment by results, which go to the institution, and not to the pupils, is an endowment of denominational education. Now, as to the distinction pointed out by the noble and learned Earl between the operation of the Conscience Clause under the Act of last year, and its operation under a measure aiding these institutions, I do not think much can turn on it. In the first place, as everybody knows, those intermediate schools are, most of them, strictly denominational, and some of them, I am told, are conducted by the Jesuits' Society, and it is not less improbable that any Protestant boy would go to a school of that description, than that he would go to Colleges such as we are now asked to assist. I cannot think there is much in that argument against the O'Conor Don's Bill. With regard to the Conscience Clause, I always supposed it was always adopted in the schools in England which are aided by the State, Roman Catholic schools included, not because it was taken for granted that there would be many persons to avail them-

  297
  selves of it, but because the State made it a condition of State aid that if the parent of any child desired to use a school of a denomination different from his own he should be at liberty do so without submitting to the specific religious teaching usually given in that school. Now, it may even be possible now and then that, under particular circumstances, some Protestant parents might wish their children to enter Roman Catholic Colleges; but without supposing many of such oases, there are, at any rate, the Roman Catholic schools, aided in accordance with the Bill of last year, in which the Conscience Clause exists as a condition of State aid. The Conscience Clause in the Bill of last year would be neither more or less effective than a similar clause in a University Bill. This is a measure of importance to Ireland, and it is essential you should not press against Ireland principles on the subject of denominational education or conditions upon which State aid is to be granted really differing from those which you apply to England.
  Motion agreed to; Amendments reported accordingly; and Bill to be read 3* To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.