Sitting of 12 June 1874

MINUTES.
SUPPLY,—considered in Committee—Committee—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—County of Hertford and Liberty of Saint Alban* [77].
Committee—Report—Conjugal Eights (Scotland) Act Amendment* [45–147].
Considered as amended—Alkali Act (1803) Amendment * [99]; Canadian Stock (Stamp Duty on Transfers * [133]; Apothecaries Act Amendment* [71].
Third Reading—Militia Law Amendment *[130]; Courts (Colonial) Jurisdiction* [111], and passed.

GREAT SOUTHERN OF INDIA AND CARNATIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (No. 2) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  SIR CHARLES FORSTERmoved, in the case of this Bill, that Standing
  1496
  Order 242 be suspended, and that the Bill be read the third time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the case of the Great Southern of India and Carnatic Railway Companies (No. 2) Bill, Standing Order 242 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
  MR. FAWCETTsuggested to postpone the consideration of the question until Tuesday.
  MR. RAIKESsubmitted that it would be most inconvenient to postpone the Bill any further. A considerable delay had already occurred in the progress of the Bill. The hon. Member for Hackney had already had an opportunity of expressing his objections to the measure.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he thought there would be no objection to his proposal, and therefore refrained from making any statement when he asked for the postponement of the Bill. He threw himself, therefore, on the indulgence of the House, whilst he stated his reasons for applying for this brief delay in the consideration of the Bill. In the first place, he disclaimed any intention of renewing a discussion which had already been closed, but he objected to the measure as it stood, because he believed that it would cast a heavy burden upon the revenue of India, and he had only yesterday discovered that an important clause under which the Government of India obtained power to purchase the Indian railways on most favourable terms, had been omitted from the Bill. In the next place, he wished the despatch issued during the Governorship of the late Lord Mayo in relation to the subject, which was expected in this country in a day or two, to be in the hands of hon. Members, before they were called upon to form a final judgment upon the measure. The Bill was to affect the amalgamation of two companies which were altogether of a different character. He would move the adjournment of the debate until Tuesday.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that in substitution of the clause which had been omitted, one which was even more favourable had been inserted. It was necessary that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent by the 13th of

  1497
  June, and he promised that if the Motion were withdrawn, the suggestions of the hon. Member for Hackney should be fully considered in "another place." He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his Motion, as a further delay would be attended with most serious consequences. He had already, on a former occasion, replied to the objections of the hon. Member, and showed that he was altogether mistaken in his impression upon the subject.
  MR. MELLYalso expressed a hope that the measure would not be postponed.
  GENEAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought the proposal to adjourn the debate for so short a time could not be attended with much difficulty.
  MR. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, he was in favour of the immediate progress of the measure.
  Question put.
  The House divided—Ayes 49; Noes 102: Majority 53.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

GENERAL POST OFFICE—THE SORTING OFFICES.—QUESTION.
MR. NAGHTENasked the Postmaster-General. If he has had his attention called to the want of proper ventilation that exists in the sorting offices of the General Post Office; and, if so, whether he is prepared to adopt a remedy for a state of things that is injurious to the health of those employed in that Department?
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that his attention had not been called to the subject until the Question of the hon. Member had been put on the Paper. Extensive alterations were in contemplation, and these would give increased space to those employed in the sorting offices.

THE IRISH MAGISTRACY—MR. JACKSON, J.P.—QUESTION.
MR. O'REILLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, "What decision the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal in Ireland have arrived at in the case of Mr. Jackson, the magistrate for the county Mayo, whose conduct in reference to the election of a Poor Law Guardian
1498
has been brought under their consideration?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, he had made inquiries, and found that Mr. Jackson had been removed from the Commission of the Peace.

PUBLIC OFFICE LIBRARIES—DUPLICATE BOOKS, &c.—QUESTION.
MR. WHEELHOUSEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can and will arrange for the gratuitious distribution among the several Free Libraries instituted throughout the three Kingdoms of some of the duplicate copies of the books and papers now stored on the shelves or in the cellars of our several public departmental offices, with a view to such books, &c, becoming more extensively circulated and used, especially in the provinces?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, he was hardly able to tell to what books and papers his hon. Friend referred. If, however, his hon. Friend would let him know privately or publicly to what books and papers he alluded, he would make inquiries and see what could be done with a view to meeting his wishes.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS. —RESOLUTION.
MR. NEWDEGATE, in moving as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
"it is expedient that Her Majesty's Ministers should introduce a Bill appointing Commissioners to inquire as to Monastic and Conventual Institutions in Great Britain,"
said: Mr. Speaker, I am fully sensible of the difficulty of inducing the House of Commons to adopt any precautionary measure. You, Sir, and I were Members of this House prior to the year 1851. You may perhaps recollect that in 1852 I read to this House, with reference to our defensive armaments, the almost despairing letter of the late Duke of Wellington to the late General Sir John Burgoyne, and you will also recollect, that it was not until the late Lord Palmerston left the then Govern-

1499
ment of Lord John Russell, because they would not accept the repeated warnings, which had reached this country from abroad, that anything effectual was done towards remedying the notorious deficiencies of the defensive armaments of this country; and even after this House had been persuaded of the necessity for measures in that direction, when the Crimean War broke out our armaments were found to be in a most lamentably deficient state in many respects, and we had to commence that war with very inadequate means. If this were the case with regard to measures of that kind, even after we had been repeatedly warned from abroad as to our actual condition of insecurity, I have felt that I had no right to expect that there would be any great readiness on the part of this House to adopt precautionary measures respecting the institutions to which my Resolution refers. It is true that in former years the House has repeatedly resolved that inquiry as to these institutions is necessary. I voted in repeated majorities in favour of inspection in 1853. I also voted in repeated majorities of 1854. In 1865, 1867, 1868, and 1869 I moved that the questions which had arisen relating to the property possessed by these institutions, or by the individuals who are connected with them, as well as with respect to the personal freedom of their inmates, should be considered, until, in the year. 1870, the House resolved that there should be an inquiry, by a Committee of this House, into those subjects; but after the House had come to this Resolution, it was induced, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, the then Prime Minister, so to pare down and limit the Instruction to the Committee, and thus to limit the scope of the inquiry, that the Roman Catholic solicitors, who appeared as witnesses before the Committee, were enabled practically to defeat the intention of the House; and although they stated that the number of convents they represented amounted to 215, and although one of these legal gentlemen said that he represented a considerable proportion of the Monastic Institutions, they disputed the accuracy of the list of those institutions in The Roman Catholic Directory which was published "Permissu Superiorum." These witnesses said that, instead of their being 69 Monastic Institutions in Great Britain,
1500
as stated in The Roman Catholic Directory, there were only 30. Whenever the Committee questioned those witnesses as to where any of these institutions might be situated, or as to the number of the inmates, or as to the property, with which it was endowed, immediately the witnesses pleaded "privilege." The Committee failed to obtain any specific information on these subjects from these witnesses, and then very unwisely rejected evidence produced by comparing the rate-book with The Roman Catholic Directory. The Committee had, therefore, no adequate means of testing the rough estimates which had been laid before them by the Roman Catholic witnesses, and I am sorry to say they rejected evidence, tendered them from other sources, some of which had been received by the Court of Probate and the Court of Chancery with reference to the tenure of property held by these institutions. Under these circumstances, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone (Sir Thomas Chambers) and I felt that we could no longer serve upon that Committee. We therefore retired, and declined to take any part in its proceedings, when it was afterwards in 1871 re-appointed for the purpose of completing its labours. That Committee, in the last paragraph of their Report, avow, that their inquiries were incomplete. They avowed that they had not procured sufficient information to enable them to recommend any change in the laws relating to property that should regulate the possessions of those institutions; the Committee virtually abandoned the task which had been confided to them. Now, Sir, I do not think that either this House or the country ought to be satisfied with an incomplete investigation of this important subject; and the less so when they look abroad and see that not merely Protestant Prussia, so far as she is Protestant while including Silesia, but united Germany, including Bavaria, and other States having large Roman Catholic populations, have deemed it necessary to take the most active and decided steps for the regulation of Monastic and Conventual Institutions within their territories; in this respect following the example which Italy has set, in order to effect her complete emancipation from Papal control. Although I wish well to the Italians, and cannot help rejoicing

1501
at the liberation of the Roman people, yet I do feel that the world has lost much of useful warning from the emancipation of Italy and Rome from Papal government. Mankind have no longer before their eyes that great example of misgovernment. And with regard to the allegation which is sometimes made that these institutions are useful in an educational point of view, let any man turn to the Italian statistics on that subject; he will find that, taking Italy locality by locality, and village by village, up to the period when her Government suppressed these Monastic and Conventual Institutions—wherever these institutions existed to the greatest extent in modern times, there ignorance and vice have most prevailed among the people. But just now another phase of this question has presented itself. Austria has found it necessary to legislate on this subject, and the last act of the Austrian Parliament respecting it, of which I have received information, is, that casting aside altogether the principles of government which were embodied in the Concordat of 1855—principles, which reserved those institutions to the sole control of the Pope, acting within what he terms his ordinary jurisdiction—the Legislature of Roman Catholic Austria has adopted the very measures which have been frequently recommended in this House, and has appointed officers with authority to inspect and report periodically upon the condition of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions within the limits of the Empire. Again, Switzerland has found it necessary to expel the Jesuits. Prussia also has found it necessary to expel the Jesuits. But here, in this country, we find them congregated, in open defiance of our laws, and, as I will show the House, treating those laws with manifest disrespect. The Roman Catholic hierarchy have recently met at St. Edmund's College, near Ware, in what they describe as a Synod. Two reporters of the public Press were invited to attend the assembly and were housed at St. Edmund's College, when for the first time since the Reformation the Papal standard was publicly unfurled in this country, and was displayed from the roof of the College. The heads of those Monastic Institutions are no longer content to remain in discreet privacy, but demand, that their presence in Synods, which
1502
they call legislative assemblies, shall be published in defiance of the existing laws. I take this account from The Morning Post of Thursday, the 24th of July, 1873—
"The following is a list of the principal clergy present yesterday, and who will for the most part remain until the conclusion of the Synod—Archbishop Manning, Bishops Brown (Newport), Ullathorne (Birmingham), Brown (Shrewsbury), Roskell (Nottingham), Vaughan (Plymouth), Clifford (Clifton), Amherst (Northampton), Cornthwaite (Beverley), Chadwick (Hexham), Danell (Southwark), Vaughan (Sal-ford), O'Reilly (Liverpool), the Most Rev. Roger Bede Vaughan (Archbishop Coadjutor of Sydney), and Archbishop Howard (Vicar Capitular of St. Peter's, Rome)."
And here follow some remarkable names and titles:—
"Abbot Burchall, Titular Abbot of "Westminster and President of the English Benedictines, who have a special rule of their own; Father King, Provincial of the Dominicans; Father Gallwey, Provincial of the Jesuits; Father O'Loughlin, Provincial of the Passionists; Father Rinolfi, Provincial of the Institute of Charity; Father Coffin, Provincial of the Redemptorists."
Now, Sir, under the provisions of the Catholic Belief Act Her Majesty's Government, to whom I now appeal, have the power, through their Officer, the Attorney General, of demanding that every member of the Monastic, or Regular Orders of the Church of Rome, who is resident in this country shall be registered. The law forbids the admission of members to those Orders, and contemplates the suppression of them in this country. But for a lengthened period no Government has even granted a Return of the names and number of such persons, resident in Great Britain, and I believe there is no register whatever in existence. There is a provision in this law—that if any Jesuit or member of any other Regular Order desire to visit this country, he must obtain leave from the Secretary of State; but we well know that members of Regular Orders of the Church of Rome are coming into this country in numbers, and that none of them condescend to ask the leave of the Secretary of State. Such is the state of the law, and such is the lax manner, in which it is administered. And what is the consequence? In the course of the first debate of the present Session, the debate upon the Address to the Crown, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) proclaimed that these laws are obsolete, and de-

1503
manded that they should be repealed, and two Sessions ago the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) introduced a Bill to repeal those clauses of the Belief Act of 1829. If the law is inoperative, as has been asserted, in reference to these institutions, then the law ought to be reconsidered with a view to ascertain, whether it should be repealed or enforced. But upon the evidence of the Roman Catholic lawyers, who appeared before the Select Committee of 1870, I deny that the clauses referred to are obsolete in the sense of being altogether inoperative; for they were unanimous in declaring, that the effect of these clauses is to restrict the acquisition of property in this country by the Monastic Orders. There is a demand that the law should be abrogated; and this is one of the grounds upon which I ask this House to urge upon Her Majesty's Government the expediency of bringing in a Bill for the appointment of Commissioners to inquire as to Monastic and Conventual Institutions in Great Britain. It is perfectly manifest, from what took place before the Select Committee of 1870, that no Committee of the House of Commons can obtain for this House the information it requires as to the localities in which these institutions exist, as to the property of which they are possessed, as to the discipline by which they are governed, as to their relations to each other, or as to the rules relating to the admission of members to these societies. If one thing more than another could show the persistent determination of some hon. Members of this House that the House shall continue to regard these Monastic Institutions as exempt from the jurisdiction of the law, in the sense in which the monasteries were exempt prior to the Reformation in this country, I think it was manifested pretty plainly two days since, when, after Her Majesty's Government had consented to obtain and lay before the House information with respect to the laws relating to these institutions in foreign countries, the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford, (Sir George Bowyer), took the opportunity of the attendance being thin, to count out the House, and thus to interrupt the business of the House on the last Tuesday that remained to the unofficial Members of the House for the transaction of
1504
their business; and that disrespectful course was adopted lest this House should receive from the Government information, which I am convinced the majority of hon. Members desire, and which the Government had intimated their willingness to provide. It appears to me that if the hon. and learned Baronet, and those who support him, had their own way, this country would be placed in the position from which Germany has delivered herself; from which Italy has delivered herself; and from which Austria has lately delivered herself with respect to these institutions. Is it, I ask, to be urged, as was pleaded before the Committee of 1870, that if the ordinary law were applied, the illegality of these institutions would become apparent, and their property be thereby confiscated? Sir, these institutions have increased, and are increasing year by year until they number now no fewer than 86 Monastic Institutions and 268 Conventual Institutions, together more than 350, and in addition to these there are 20 Roman Catholic Colleges, conducted, I believe, by members of the Regular Orders. I ask the House, whether it is seemly, whether it is becoming, whether it is safe, that the law of this country should longer remain without the means of adequate supervision and control over those portions of our territory, which are claimed as exempt from the jurisdiction of the State as exercised over every other portion of it? There was a time, Sir, when public-houses were not subject to special supervision in this country. There was a time when factories were not regulated. And there was a time when no limit was applied to the number of persons in lodging-houses; but now the women, young persons, and children who are employed in factory labour, and workmen in other employments, are all cared for by law; and we have adopted stringent regulations with respect to the hours of opening and closing, and the conduct of public-houses. I ask this House, then, if all this does not render it more and more anomalous that these institutions, on the pretence that they are private institutions, should be growing up by hundreds, whilst England stands alone among the principal nations of Europe in permitting the patrons and inmates of those institutions to defy her laws, and to be free from all supervision on

1505
the part of the State, while they refuse to submit to those provisions of the law which even Roman Catholics in Prussia, in Switzerland, in Italy, and in Austria, have concurred in granting to their respective Governments. But, Sir, a principle has recently been enunciated, by high authority in the Church of Rome, which has an application to this subject, and which, I think, ought to be emphatically repudiated. Sir, Dr. Manning has declared that His Holiness the Pope is the sole judge of the extent of his jurisdiction in every State, as against the authority of the State and its laws; and this is a proposition which the Pope himself has enunciated, and enunciated particularly with respect to Prance. M. Emile Ollivier, prior to becoming Prime Minister of France, published, as appended to an address to his constituents, a letter addressed in 1865 by His Holiness the Pope to the late Archbishop of Paris, Monsignor Darboy, in which His Holiness condemned Monsignor Darboy, as Archbishop of Paris and a Senator of Prance, because, acting upon the laws of Prance and in accordance with the terms of the Concordat between His Holiness and France, as Archbishop he had visited the establishments of the Jesuits and the Franciscans in Paris. This is an authoritative document, and I have a copy of it here at the service of any hon. Member who would like to see it. In that letter His Holiness the Pope declares that this exemption is the peculiar privilege of the Jesuits, and that it has been extended to the Franciscans and other of the Regular Orders of the Church of Rome, to be exempt from episcopal superintendence and supervision; that they come within the ordinary jurisdiction of His Holiness, and are distinctly, themselves and their property, an appanage of the Holy See in whatever country their institutions may be situate. I state this upon the authority of the document, which was produced by a late Prime Minister of France as having emanated directly from the Holy See; and these pretensions account for the action of foreign Governments in relation to those institutions. The relations between the Government of Russia and the Holy See teach the same lesson. In 1865 the Russian Government expressed their readiness to agree to a Concordat, especially in re-
1506
ference to Poland, conceived in the same terms as the Concordat with the Government of France. But the authorities of the Holy See after long evasion at length refused, and no wonder, for at that very time His Holiness the Pope was condemning the Archbishop of Paris, who desired to comply with the terms of the Concordat between Franco and the Holy See, and was acting through his agents in an opposite sense in Poland. It was not likely that he would consent to a Concordat with Russia similar to that with France, which he was seeking to violate. I ask, then, when such extreme pretensions are put forward, whether it is not high time that we should have information at our command with reference to those institutions, which are growing up in this country, and, whose representatives are, as I have shown the House, ostentatiously defying existing laws? Is it not time for Parliament and the Government of the country to inquire, whether some of the regulations with respect to Monastic and Conventual Institutions enforced by foreign States should be adopted here—regulations adopted not only in Prussia and Switzerland, but which have been found necessary in Roman Catholic States for the superintendence and supervision by the civil authorities of these institutions? Let me remind the House that the clauses of the Catholic Emancipation Act, which have thus been disregarded and set at defiance, were not meant to be a dead letter by the originators of that Act. With the permission of the House, I will quote the words of the Duke of Wellington, one of the authors of the Roman Catholic Relief Act—of the statute which confers the privilege of sitting in this House upon hon. Members opposite who belong to the Roman Catholic persuasion. The Duke of Wellington said when introducing the Bill of 1829, with reference to those clauses which relate to the Regular Monastic Orders in the Emancipation Act—
"Another part of the Bill has for its object to put an end to the order of Jesuits and other monastic orders in this country."
In saying this he was alluding, no doubt, to Clongowes, in Ireland, and an establishment in Galway. There were at that time no such institutions in England or Scotland, excepting the College of Stonyhurst. He went on to say—

1507
"The measure, which I now propose for your Lordships' adoption, will prevent the increase of such establishments, and without oppression to any individual, and without injury to any body of men, will gradually put an end to those which have already been formed. There is no man more convinced than I am of the absolute necessity for carrying into execution that part of the present measure which has for its object the extinction of monastic orders in this country. I entertain no doubt whatever, that if that part of this measure be not carried into execution your Lordships will very soon see this country and Ireland inundated by the Jesuits, and the regular monastic clergy sent out from other parts of Europe with the means of establishing themselves within His Majesty's kingdom."
This did not occur quite so soon as the Duke of "Wellington anticipated; but it has occurred now, and it is for that reason that I affirm that these establishments are created and maintained in direct opposition to, and in defiance of, the laws of this country. I say again, if these laws are obsolete, let there be an inquiry as to what ought to be substituted for them. If those laws are not enforced, let us inquire what is the reason that they are not enforced. And if those laws are defective or inadequate, let us inquire by what means they may be corrected or supplemented. It has been said that it would be disrespectful to the ladies in convents to institute an inquiry; but, Sir, I do not propose the regular and periodical inspection of those establishments. What I propose is simply this—that Parliament and the Government should be informed as to the numbers, the character, the discipline, and the relations of those institutions to each other. Now, I wish to bring no false accusations against convents; but I must be permitted to remind the House of a transaction which came within my own knowledge, in times gone by. In the year 1851 two hon. Members of this House brought forward the case of Miss Talbot, the late Lady Edward Howard. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Oh!] I think the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford was a Member of the House at the time, and if he refers to Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, he will find his own speech and what I said on the occasion, and further what occurred in this House. The late Mr. Craven Berkeley, a friend of mine, was the stepfather of this lady, and he came to me and told me that his stepdaughter, Miss Talbot, was likely to be placed in a position in which she would not have a fair
1508
option as to taking the conventual vows. The late Mr. Henry Drummond was then a Member of this House, and as he was an older Member than I, I referred Mr. Berkeley to him, and we brought the case before the House. Our object was to compel the Lord Chancellor to sit on a Saturday, because we had no other means of reaching the convent in which Miss Talbot was detained, so as to prevent the vow being administered on the Monday—Miss Talbot was a ward in Chancery—and we succeeded.
SIR GEORGE BOWYER: I rise to Order. The hon. Member is going into transactions which he is misrepresenting. And as I took part in the matter to which he is referring I must correct him. [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for North Warwickshire is not out of Order. The matter to which he is referring is relevant to the Motion, and the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford will have an opportunity of contradicting him afterwards if he thinks the hon. Member is misrepresenting the facts.
SIR GEORGE BOWYER: I rose merely to correct the hon. Gentleman.
MR. NEWDEGATE: The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford is a Knight of the Order of St. Gregory, wears the Collar of the Order of Constantine, and is altogether very proud of his Papal distinctions, and he presumes to interfere with a discussion in this House, as if the House has no right to debate or to review occurrences which have taken place within its own walls. But the House of Commons did not so judge in 1851. The Lord Chancellor did not so judge in 1851, for he sat on the Saturday, and on the Monday messengers went down and brought that lady back to her nearest male relative, my late friend, Mr. Craven Berkeley. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: No!] I am surprised that the hon. and learned Baronet should contradict me on this matter—[Sir GEORGE BOWYER: I do]—for I was staying in the house with Mr. Craven Berkeley when the lady arrived. I never saw such a display of zeal as this, which would deny to me the evidence of my own senses. I speak of what I know. I speak of what I saw. I speak of transactions between a personal friend and myself; and yet the hon. and learned Baronet the Member

1509
for Wexford, distinguished as he is by all these Papal orders, pretends, through some power of vision surpassing human faculties, to know better than I what passed between me and the stepfather of this lady. I had the honour of being made known to her afterwards, and was glad to see her happily married, and that she lived some years to be an ornament to the society, in which she moved. That occurrence produced a deep impression on my mind. I know, also, that a nun escaped from a convent in my own neighbourhood, and that, in consequence of what appeared as to the severities in that convent, the community which inhabited that convent had to abandon it. Another lady left the convent at Colwich, and was brought back. Under the direction of Mr. Justice Wight-man, inquiries under circumstances of great difficulty were made as to whether it would be possible to obtain sufficient evidence upon which to found the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus. I know that friends of mine were obliged to employ detectives for weeks, almost months, because sufficient evidence as to the lady's real name and her being within that convent could not be obtained. The Lord Chief Justice of England has asserted that a writ from the Court of Queen's Bench could open the doors of any convent. Granted; but I know this, that Mr. Justice Wightman was kept waiting six weeks before he could obtain evidence upon which he might order the issue of the writ, and after all it was discovered that this lady had been removed from the convent at Colwich to another convent in the interval. She appeared to have been at the Colwich Convent when the application was made to the Court before sufficient evidence was forthcoming, but messengers had to be sent to another convent. I ask, then, how is the liberty of inmates of convents secured, when, though a Judge has such evidence and information as induces him to desire that inquiry should be prosecuted, skilful detectives, supported by able lawyers, are six weeks in obtaining the evidence on which the issue of the writ depends? I say, Sir, that the existence of such cases constitutes a reason for inquiring whether we ought not to adopt the system of supervision which is now in operation in Austria and Germany, so that when some inmate of a convent is reasonably
1510
believed to be detained therein against her will, some authority should be enabled to reach that person within a less period than six weeks. What may not happen within the six weeks? And why are the Parliament and Government of England to be the only European exceptions to acknowledging a necessity that has been acknowledged by every Continental country? I hold in my hand the regulations contained in the Prussian Code with respect to convents. I should be sorry to detain the House by reading extracts from them; but I may briefly state, that in Prussia the law lays down exact conditions with regard to the age at which a person, whether male or female, shall be permitted to take monastic or conventual vows. The law also requires the consent of the guardians in the case of minors. It further requires, that the sum given to the convent or monastery on admission shall not exceed a certain amount. It also requires that the vow shall not be binding for more than five years; the State shall then inquire again whether the inmate is contented with his or her position; and, moreover, it provides, that during that period no such inmate, whether monk or nun, shall be held capable of acquiring property, except in such proportion as was originally agreed upon before the taking of the vow, lest those institutions should, as they have done in Italy but recently, absorb too large a portion of the property of the country. Again, these regulations comprise certain rules to be observed by the family of the inmate. I can furnish copies or extracts of these laws to any hon. Member who would like to see them. And I ask, that if we are to sanction the rapid increase of these Conventual Establishments in this country, is it not due to the people of England, who have petitioned this House by thousands for years past, that this House should agree to the appointment of a Commission, whose duty it will be not to drag these ladies from their seclusion, but to visit the localities of convents, not to force the conscience of anyone, but to inquire and procure information as to the character of those institutions, and as to the regulations under which the inmates are living in them? During the long course of years that this question has been agitated it has come to my knowledge that a con-

1511
vent may be a happy home one month, and within another month—aye, less than a month, for it has happened in a convent in my own county—the whole system may be changed, and that happy home turned into a prison, in which severities may be practised, that I will not trust myself to characterize. I shall not detain the House much longer. I represent hundreds of thousands of my fellow-countrymen. I express the deliberate opinion of hundreds of thousands of my fellow-countrymen in favour of the inquiry I suggest. I have never uttered a word that was disrespectful to any nun or lady in these convents. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members may cry "Oh" if they please; I repeat that I have never done so, though if it were necessary to use strong expressions in the attempt to describe repulsive circumstances in such eases, I would not hesitate to use them. I appeal to the English House of Commons, an assembly of English Gentlemen, no longer to neglect these institutions. I ask the House to be warned by the example of Roman Catholic States; not to be so proud as to imagine that in England we shall always be free from the dangers which have induced the people of Germany to establish regulations for the government of those institutions; because these Monastic Institutions form the basis of the political action of the leading Order of the Papal system, and the Jesuits have justified the opinion, which was expressed in this House by Lord Palmerston in the case of Switzerland—he being at the time Secretary for Foreign Affairs—that unless they were duly controlled, the existence of that Order in any country, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, is not calculated to promote the peace, the happiness, and welfare of its people. I beg now to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is expedient that Her Majesty's Ministers should introduce a Bill appointing Commissioners to inquire as to Monastic and Conventual Institutions in Great Britain,"—(Mr. Newdegate,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. O'SULLIVANrose to oppose the motion, because, from what he knew of the lives of the inmates of convents, it was quite unnecessary that they should be subjected to any inquiry. He was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury was too clear-headed to be led into such an ambush as that now laid for him—an ambush so fatal to the liberty of the subject and the peace of the Empire. Where would be the boast that an Englishman's house was his castle, if such a law as the hon. Member proposed was passed? If any of the ladies in those institutions were detained there a day beyond their wishes, or were ill-treated, the Roman Catholic Members of that House would be the first to call the attention of the Government to the case. Those convents were occupied by ladies who had given up the joys, pleasures, fortunes, and vanities of this life to devote their time and talents to the service of their God, and they were never known to have committed any breach of the laws. Those institutions were places to which Roman Catholic gentlemen sent their daughters to be educated, in order that they might receive a pure moral training. Why were they to be selected for persecution and insult? There was no Irishman in the country worthy of the name who would not spring to his feet to defend the honour of those pure and holy women if a Bill like that contemplated by the hon. Member were introduced. If the Motion of the hon. Member was carried, they might have an inspection of convents, which would include the underclothing of the nuns—["Oh, oh!"]—and the ascertaining of the fact whether any of them were of the colour which seemed to inflame bulls, turkey-cocks, and Protestants alike—["Oh, oh!"] No measure could cause a greater disruption of society than that would do, and while there were many unjust things which Irishmen might submit to, they never would submit to the wanton insult involved in such a Bill.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, he had put on the Paper the following Amendment—
"That this House, while it raises no claim to interfere with the religious observances of Roman Catholics, is nevertheless of opinion that the rapid increase of Monastic and Conventual

1513
Establishments in this Country demands a careful inquiry, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, whether any additional securities, such as have been imposed in Foreign Countries, oven under Roman Catholic Governments, are needed here to insure the full personal liberty of the inmates, and to secure to them absolute freedom in the disposition of their property."
He knew that he could not take the sense of the House on his Amendment, which he had placed on the Paper, not in opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, but in order to prevent such a misunderstanding as existed in the mind of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and to point out what were the real dangers to be guarded against and the precautions which might be necessary in connection with that subject. It was especially desirable that a question like that should be brought forward and clearly understood in a new Parliament, many hon. Members of which had not had an opportunity of hearing it discussed before, and therefore, perhaps, entertained the vague ideas about it which were common outside of that House. He was sure the House would never pass any judgment, and certainly no condemnation, on those who, in obedience to the highest motives, gave up the dearest ties of home and kindred in order to devote themselves to the service of religion. He was willing to allow that these institutions had in the Middle Ages conferred great benefits on the country, especially in regard to literature and learning; but the very rapid increase in their numbers during the last few years ought not to pass unnoticed by that House. In 1829 there were only 16 conventual institutions in this country; in 1851 there were 53, and now the number had increased to 268. In 1829 the number of monastic institutions was nil, while at present there were 86. Seeing that increase, the House had a right to inquire whether there was anything in the peculiar conditions of those institutions which rendered peculiar safeguards necessary for the liberty and property of their inmates. According to Romish authorities, it was morally impossible for a professed nun who had taken the vows to come forth again from seclusion. ["No, no!"] With moral considerations they had nothing to do; but it was the duty of the House to inquire whether it was physically possible for them to come forward, and
1514
whether they were prevented by the bolts and bars of their convents from coming out. From the nature of the building in which they resided, it usually appeared to have been designed not only to protect them from intrusion, but to keep the inmates from getting out. When they considered the age at which the vows were frequently taken, it would seem probable that there were many spirits who rebelled against the discipline, and who were met by imperious wills backed by absolute power, and the House must feel that there was some danger lest undue coercion might exist in these institutions. It was alleged that these were voluntary inmates, and ladies of title had said they were free to come and go. The hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan) had said that many Members of that House had female relations in these institutions, and that if they had anything to complain of, they would apply to them. But all the inmates of these institutions had not friends in that House, and although in the majority of cases there might be no danger, yet in the minority there might be a great and absolute danger, and he thought their cases ought not to be overlooked. Cases illustrating the circumstances connected with the entrance to these institutions had been presented to the public, and it would be some satisfaction therefore if they had more information about their management, and knew whether the state of things had been changed for the better or not. He did not wish to harrow the House with details; but the House would recollect the miserable condition in which Barbara Ulrich, the Nun of Cracow, was discovered. The House would remember the case of "Saurin v. Star" before the Courts of this country. Father Saurin stated that the horrors of which his niece was the victim surpassed the wildest imagination. If such things were possible, the House had a right to ask whether they ought not to be prevented, if it lay in the power of Parliament to prevent them. With regard to property, the amount held by these institutions was very large; but matters had not yet returned to the length to which they had attained in the time of Henry VIII, when half the land of the country was held by monastic institutions. Still, cases had been brought before the Law Courts which proved that

1515
undue influence where the disposition of property was concerned was brought to bear against the inmates of convents. In the case of. "White v. Mead," which was tried before Chief Justice Penne-father, in the Irish Court of Exchequer, an inmate had been induced by the solicitor of the convent to convey her property for the benefit of the institution, pending which she had been refused the liberty of seeing her own relations. The Judge held that the property must be reconveyed, on the ground that undue influence had been used. In the case of Miss Macarthy, she stated that she had been obliged to sign a deed which assigned her property, but that it was like the act of a dead person. The Times called it a revolting case, and Mr. Napier told the House in 1853, that when he went back to Ireland he found that the Roman Catholic Members of the Irish Bar were against inspection, but that they thought there ought to be some provision with regard to the disposition of property. That doubt had been at various times felt by Roman Catholic Members, and these cases had left a strong impression upon the country, and an undefined feeling that all was not yet known, and that worse might remain behind. The right method of dealing with these questions had not yet been discovered, and therefore he thought the House might fairly consider any suggestions on the subject which should be made from any quarter whatever, for the present chronic agitation must be unpleasant to all parties, and members of these institutions could not feel very comfortable when they must be in doubt as to the legality of their position. On the other side, the House was bound to consider the disabilities under which the members of these religious bodies might labour. It had also a right to consider what was done in foreign countries, and especially in Roman Catholic States, as had been shown by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, where restrictions and regulations were not considered an insult or reflection upon the managers of these institutions. Such regulations were enacted because the State thought that these persons required protection, and because the State could not recognize a power superior to itself within its own limits. Without asking the Government to embark in any Bismarckian
1516
crusade, the House might reasonably expect them to take measures for the security and liberty of these persons. Their security might be improved by a compulsory registration of all the inmates of these institutions. In one case before our Courts, a doubt existed as to whether a particular person was an inmate in one of these institutions. If a compulsory registration had existed, and she had been found to be there, a writ of Habeas Corpus might have been moved for, and then the whole question might have been tried. As to property, the law was extremely jealous of the exercise of undue influence, and he thought it therefore not unfair to ask that the ladies in question should be placed in the position of wards of Chancery, as was the case with minors. The Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire for inquiry by the Government, appeared to be obnoxious to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who seemed to suppose that the peace of the nuns might be disturbed and that they might be dragged from their seclusion if it were carried. His own opinion was, too, that there was enough known on the subject already, and that public inquiry was, therefore, unnecessary. The law would not allow a man to part with his own rights, and did not even give him liberty over his life, and it should, therefore, in his opinion, extend its protection over those who happened to have entered convents. Parliament had extended the protection of the law to Irish tenants, and he had never heard that they had deemed themselves to be insulted by the passing of the Irish Land Act, while only the day before, the House had given its sanction to a measure for the protection of women and children. Now, if, as the Home Secretary had then stated, a woman ought to be protected against her sympathies for her family, he thought she ought also to be protected in the case of those religious sympathies which left her no longer mistress of herself. He felt, however, that it would be too much to ask the Government to bring in a Bill on the subject in the present Session. What he hoped they would consent to do was, to issue instructions to our Ministers abroad, as had been done with reference to the Game and the Land Laws, to make inquiries as to the regulations under which convents were

1517
placed in other countries. If hon. Gentlemen opposite objected to that course, it would show, he thought, that they were afraid of inquiry. He hoped, at all events, that the Government, who were strong enough to take the course which they deemed to be right in the O'Keeffe case, would not refuse to give him the assurance for which he asked. If not, he should deem it to be his duty to vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he was anxious that on his side of the House there should be no debate on the subject, because he considered that both the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) and the Amendment which followed, were addressed to Her Majesty's Government, and for himself, he felt confident the Government would deal with the question in a fair and honourable manner. But matters had been brought forward in which he took a personal part, and therefore it was impossible for him to remain silent. He should have thought that good taste and good feeling would have prevented any hon. Member of that House, or any Gentleman, from bringing forward private matters as to a noble lady now in her grave; but the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had done so, and therefore he (Sir George Bowyer) would not shrink from stating what the facts were. That lady was not a nun, but was a young lady in a boarding school attached to a convent, and there was no intention on her part, or on the part of anyone else, that she should become a nun, and he had the authority of the rev. Dr. Doyle, who was her guardian, and whom everyone who knew him respected, for saying that he had not the slightest wish that she should remain in a convent, and that his desire was to see her happily married and the happy mother of children. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire went on to say that the lady in question had been denied access to her relative, Mr. Craven Berkeley; but she had, at the time, informed him (Sir George Bowyer) most distinctly, and authorized him at the time to state to the House, that if she had wished to see Mr. Berkeley, there was nothing to prevent her doing so, but that she had declined to see him because he was a person she
1518
disliked, and who had no particular claim upon her. He had married her mother, who was dead, and she did not consider he was any relation of hers. She soon after left the convent, was placed under the care of the Countess of Newburgh, went into London society, and was married to Lord Howard of Glossop. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the case of a nun who had escaped from a convent; but the facts of that case were, as he had been informed by Dr. Ullathorne, Bishop of Birmingham, that the lady in question wished to go to a more severe convent, to which the Bishop thought her health was not suited. The result was that she escaped for the purpose of entering the convent which she preferred, being at perfect liberty to go out into the world. As to Barbara Ulrich, it was well known that she was a lunatic, and that the superiors of the convent had been completely acquitted, by a Court of Justice, of the charges which had been made against them in her case. There was undue influence out of convents, and he did not say there was not undue influence in convents, but all such cases might be dealt with by a Court of Law. The hon. Member had based his case on the law and policy of foreign countries, and seemed to think that they ought to be applied to England; but that he (Sir George Bowyer) denied. England and America were the only countries where the true principles of civil and religious liberty were properly understood. From Germany, in that respect, they had nothing to learn for its Government was founded on a military despotism. In that country four Bishops—and of those, three were Princes of the Empire—had had all their property seized, and been sent to prison for the committal of what no one but a lunatic could call offences. These arbitrary acts the hon. Member wished to see introduced here; just as in Italy, under a Government based upon revolution, property had been confiscated without law and without compensation, in a manner which could not be imitated in this country, and those who owned it left to starve. Even if the hon. Member obtained the laws he asked for they would be utterly useless, as he would find they were alien to the spirit of our constitution which it had been the honour and glory of this country always to maintain. Again, in countries

1519
where Government inspection was practised, the law exercised some control over those institutions, because it recognized their existence; but in this country the law did not in any way recognize those religious houses, and with regard to convents in this country he could speak with some authority, as he himself had been the founder of two, and he said that they were nothing more than private houses, and open in the same way to the authority of the law. Boarding-schools were generally attached to those convents, and they were open to the visits of relatives and friends of the inmates, and he ventured to assert that the private life in convents was better known than the private life in any private houses in the country, that there was no secresy in those institutions, and that if anyone wished to visit them he might do so freely. He therefore submitted that the hon. Member for North "Warwickshire had made out no case that would warrant the interference of Parliament.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: It is quite clear, Sir, that a discussion on this question must always be one which excites a good deal of feeling, and it is not unnatural that it should do so, because there are a great many hon. Members in this House whose every sympathy is aroused by such a discussion. I hope I shall not, in what I am about to say, wound the feelings of any hon. Member, and I shall endeavour to avoid anything that may tend to lead to religious strife. Now, no one in this House has a greater respect for the motives which actuate the hon. Member for North Warwickshire than I have. I know how sincere he is in anything he undertakes, and he has pursued a thoroughly consistent and honourable course throughout his whole career. But it has not been a successful career, and it is rather hard upon the Government, when he has withdrawn his own Bill, because he found that it did not command sufficient sympathy in the House, that he should bring forward a Motion calling upon us to take up the very same Bill. [MR. NEWDEGATE said, that he hoped the Government would produce a better measure.] I am quite sure that my hon. Friend does not think that a better Bill than his own can be introduced. My hon. Friend has also another Motion on the Paper for tonight respecting the production of the
1520
copy and translations of any laws, ordinances, or regulations relating to these institutions in certain foreign countries, and he says that he will be perfectly satisfied if the Government will give an assurance that Papers of this description shall be produced. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department has already stated that there will be no objection to their production. But let me say one word with respect to these foreign laws. I want to know what my hon. Friend really wishes us to do. Does he want us to adopt these laws when they apply to these institutions, because these foreign Governments undertake many duties which the English Government has long ceased to undertake? They undertake not only to regulate the Established Church of the country, but to regulate the affairs of every other Church besides. And that does not make the whole difference, because when they regulate they recognize; and if you undertake the regulation, it seems impossible not to undertake recognition. In the Act of 1829 there were specific provisions inserted in the Emancipation Act, the enforcing of which were thrown upon the Attorney General, or practically upon the Government of the country; but neither the Duke of Wellington nor Sir Robert Peel attempted to put these restrictions in force, although they were twice in office after the passing of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act; and it cannot be said that at that time Monastic and Conventual Institutions had not been begun to be founded in England. The authors of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act allowed these laws to remain upon the Statute Book with the view that, if there were any interference on the part of these institutions with the liberty of the State, that then these exceptional laws should be put into force; but that before they were so put into force, a strong case must first be made out, which I do not think the hon. Member has succeeded in doing on the present occasion. I am equally as sensible as the hon. Member of the evils that may arise from these institutions, but I am still more sensible than he is of the danger of unnecessarily interfering with them. In a country so divided in religious feeling as this, we must exercise the greatest tolerance towards each other, and when we have to deal

1521
with a question of this kind, which touches the deepest feelings not only of hon. Members of this House, but of vast numbers of our people, we ought not to take any step calculated to violate their consciences or to wound their feelings, unless there is some very great State necessity for doing so. I could not help observing that in all the cases referred to by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire there was an interference by the regular process of law. Thus, in the case of the lady to which he referred the Lord Chancellor interfered.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERexplained that in that case the lady was a ward in Chancery, and the Lord Chancellor had only sat to decide what allowance should be made to her.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: At all events, the Lord Chancellor did sit to look into her case. In the case of "Saurin v. Star" and in the other cases mentioned, the ordinary civil law was put into force, and was found sufficient for the purpose. I do not say that the ordinary law is sufficient in every instance, but that when you are going to take an exceptional course you must have some strong, valid, and permanent foundation upon which to base yourself. I do not think that the hon. Member has succeeded in laying this in the present instance. With regard to what was said by the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devonshire (Sir John Kennaway) as to personal liberty, there are points as to which we ought to take care. How is it that we are able to interfere with people who are outside this institution? Again and again, persons are taken away or shut up, and it is only by such evidence as we could obtain in the case of convents, that we are able to put the Habeas Corpus Act in force. It is said that tyranny is exercised in convents; but again and again we have read of cases where wretched persons who are insane have been chained up for years, through ignorance and stupidity rather than from malice and wickedness of their relations: but in time the law has discovered the fact, and the Habeas Corpus Act having been put into force, the relations of these persons have been called upon to answer for their conduct. I know it is more difficult to obtain information of what passes in a convent than of what passes under the eyes of observant neighbours,
1522
but I do not see myself, what objection there can be on the part of those interested in these institutions to furnish lists of those who are inmates of them. I do not believe, indeed, that there would be any objection on their part to give such information, which I presume is given each Census. I do not see why ladies in convents should decline to do that which they are called upon sometimes to do in private houses, and disclose their names and ages. It is my belief that in all such cases as those referred to by the hon. Member the ordinary law is operative and is sufficient. We stand in this position—many hon. Members have strong feelings, more or less well-founded, on this subject, and it would be rather a strong measure of the House of Commons to thrust upon the Government the duty of bringing in a measure which no private Member has ever yet succeeded in persuading the House to adopt. Therefore, as the hon. Member's resolution is in the form of an Amendment upon the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, we may meet it by what is practically the Previous Question, and I trust, therefore, that the House, refraining from putting this pressure upon us, will vote that we shall go into Committee of Supply.
SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was not quite accurate in stating that no one had yet persuaded the House of Commons to pass Bills of the nature of that proposed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, because some 20 years ago the House had passed them by considerable majorities. The right hon. Gentleman said that the ordinary law was sufficient to deal with cases such as those which had been referred to in the course of the debate; but in the same breath, he had admitted that there would be greater difficulty in obtaining information respecting what occurred in Convents and Monastic Institutions than there would be in obtaining information respecting what occurred in private houses. Parliament had found it necessary, in the cases of persons employed underground, of factory children, of women, and of lunatics who were unable to protect themselves, to pass special laws for their protection, and he did not see why the inmates of these institutions should not be equally protected by legislation. The

1523
right hon. Gentleman had said these institutions must not be interfered with, because they were not recognized by the law—that was to say, that these institutions must not be touched in any way, because they were illegal. The time, howevers, would come when the numbers of those institutions and of their inmates would become so large, and the property held by them so great, that Parliament would be compelled to interfere, and perhaps the feelings of the people towards them then would not be so gentle as they were at present.
MR. HOLTsaid, that the hon. Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) had stated that the statements of Barbara Ulrich were those of an insane person; but he begged to point out that the fact that she had been confined in a dark cell for 21 years, and was found by the authorities naked, dirty, and lying upon a rotten bed, was proved, not by her statement, but by judicial investigations.
MR. FORSYTHsaid, that if he were a Roman Catholic he should vote for the Motion, because he believed that a great deal of mischief was done to members of that religion by an uneasy suspicion—not founded in justice—with respect to what went on in convents and monasteries. He should vote for it also for another reason—namely, that monasteries and, as a lawyer, he believed convents also, could not be inspected under an Act of Parliament without being so far recognized by the Legislature as to become legal institutions. When, however, he was asked to vote for a Motion which called upon the Government to bring in a Bill on the subject, he was compelled to ask himself what were the feelings of the Roman Catholics whose institutions and property were affected. He found that they were all opposed to such a proceeding, and he therefore could not support the Motion, unless it could be shown, as it had not been, that there was something in those institutions which was dangerous to the State or injurious to morality. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had not made out such a proposition, and it was impossible for things to go on in monasteries such as he suggested without immediate redress being found. He should vote on neither side, if the Motion were pressed to a division.
MR. POWER, as a Roman Catholic Member, declared that he would have
1524
no objection to the introduction of a measure for procuring a registration of the names of all persons in convents. He denied that the Roman Catholic community had that decided antipathy to inquiry which was suspected by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, but they were anxious that some necessity should be shown to exist for this exceptional legislation. He represented no Catholic bigotry. A few weeks ago he was engaged in a contest in which three Roman Catholic Bishops and 150 priests were leagued against him, and he received the support of a large number of his Protestant fellow countrymen. He was only representing their views when he protested against the introduction of a measure which was calculated to stir up religious strife in the country and to bring about those horrible dissensions between creeds and classes which had stained some of the brightest pages of Irish history.
MR. GREENEexpressed his great regret at the manner in which the Government had treated this subject. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War state that no sufficient case had been made out for inquiry; but he (Mr. Greene) maintained that the people of England felt very strongly upon this subject, and he ventured to say that at the next General Election they would make their voices heard with no uncertain sound. The action of the Government led him to suppose that they were bidding for the support of Irish Members opposite, which they would find but a broken reed to trust to. He wanted to see straight Protestant Conservative principles upheld by the Government and the House, and for that purpose he had been sent there, and rather than not carry out those principles, he would retire to the quiet of his own home.
MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, he was strongly opposed to any inquiry into these conventual establishments, and for one great reason—namely, that they were inhabited by persons who were the most loyal people in this country. He thought it would be shameful in the House to send a Royal Commissioner to inquire into these establishments. Let the House suppose that a Royal Commissioner was appointed to visit them. He was furnished with a Royal Commission,

1525
and he thundered at the door of a convent. He was admitted, and he asked the lady who admited him, who she might have been and what was her quality before she entered that convent. She replied—"I will tell you. My sire, sir, was a King; my mother was the daughter of the sixth James of Scotland, and afterwards first James of England; her mother, sir, was Queen Regent of Scotland and Queen Consort of France, and next entitled to the throne of England; she was murdered by a Protestant Queen." [Laughter.] Could any hon. Member deny it? The Queen that was murdered was a Catholic, and the Queen that murdered her was a Protestant. But the poor nun went on to say—"Sir, I had a brother; his name was Rupert, sir; he rode by the side of Charles I. until a Protestant—not a Catholic—but a Protestant Roundhead of England murdered that monarch." [Renewed laughter.] Let hon. Members deny it if they could. "Sir, I had a sister; her name was Sophia; she was mother to the King of England, sir. Proceed, sir, with your duties as a Royal Commissioner. My name is Elizabeth. I am the abbess—the poor abbess of Ardwick." It was easy enough to go on the stage, but difficult to leave it with dignity. With what dignity could that Royal Commissioner depart from that room in the eyes of the injured Princess, and a loyal Princess, no doubt? He could not leave it, except in one of two characters—either as a miserable slave, or as a gentleman. If in the former character, he was not fit to be a Royal Commissioner; if in the latter, the Royal Commission was not fit for him. What was there for him to do? Nothing but to rush from the presence of that poor insulted Princess, and cover his wretched head with sackcloth and ashes—put himself on his knees in front of the only god he recognized,—namely, the immortal gods, and to pray that they would give him pardon:—
"Dii, quibus imperium est animarum, Umbræque siientes,
Et Chaos, et Phlegethon, loca nocte silentia late Sit mihi fas audita loqui."
He would add, "Da mihi veniam," and it was to be hoped he would get pardon, for he would stand in need of it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 237; Noes 94: Majority 143.
Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

UNIVERSITY FEMALE EDUCATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLE, in rising to call attention to the legal disabilities which have prevented matriculated and registered students of medicine in the University of Edinburgh from completing their education and proceeding to graduation, on account of such students being women; and to move—
  "That it is expedient that legal powers should be given to the Universities of Scotland to make such regulations as they may think fit for the admission and complete education of female students."
  said, it had always been an honoured tradition in that House to give a patient hearing to grievances caused by defects in the law, and this would not be refused when the victims were weak, and had no voice in the election of Members, and when the law complained of could easily be amended. The great and rapid strides of education in recent years had not been limited by locality, class, or sex. Although girls were shut out from all public establishments for education they had access to middle-class schools in which an increased power of teaching and advanced methods placed them almost on a level with the middle schools for boys. But these praiseworthy and useful efforts must be crippled and incomplete until they were capped and crowned by something equivalent to the University education of young men. Prejudices against education were slow to defeat. For many long years the fear that improved education would raise discontent amongst the lower classes, and lead to disaffection against the existing organization of society, had impeded the benevolent efforts of the clergy to improve their schools; and a similar prejudice still thwarted the advancement of female education, under the apprehension that higher scholastic training might tempt them to break through the bounds which nature and the ordinances of society had placed around their sex. But experience had already proved the futility of such fears. Systematic and sound mental culture tended to wisdom, not to folly. It was only a superficial smattering that misled the judgment. The chief nations of

  1527
  Europe were in advance of Great Britain in the higher education of women. In the University of Paris 10 female students were to be found at that moment, and Englishwomen went there for medical degrees. Women might take degrees at the Universities of Lyons and Montpellier, at all the Universities of Italy, at Vienna, and Leipzig. At St. Petersburg 250 young women were receiving medical education; some had gone from Russia to the University of Zurich, from whence they were recalled for political reasons, as Zurich was the resort of refugee Poles. The Universities which had taken the lead in this important matter were the University of London, the University of Cambridge, and the University of Edinburgh. Several years had elapsed since Professors of King's College, London, took the lead in establishing a special College for young women, called Queen's College. That experience, such as it was, had been satisfactory. At the present moment there were in the University College of London, a considerable number of Professors who were endeavouring to extend the benefit of higher and better education to young women. During the past year, in University College, there were about 300 ladies who attended these separate classes, and about 150 who attended the mixed classes of the Professors. London University itself had given certificates of efficiency to these ladies, which were intended to be equivalent to the degrees which were conferred upon the males; and recently a majority of the convocation were of opinion that it was not enough that females should receive certificates of efficiency, but that the time had arrived when the female students in the University should receive degrees. Though the numbers were not great who voted on either side, yet there was reason to suppose that the majority of those who voted on that occasion really represented the majority of the whole body of the graduates, for not long ago there was a memorial signed by 500 of the graduates of London University College, declaring that the time had come when degrees ought to be given to women. At Cambridge many of the Professors had taken a very leading part in trying to extend higher education to women in connection with the teaching of that University. The Cambridge local examinations extended to ninety female
  1528
  students, who were studying in separate classes. Out of the public lectures there were 22 which were open to young women to attend. At Girton College at Cambridge, distinctly founded for the exclusive education of young women over the age of 18, a system was carried on of discipline and systematic teaching which was framed on the same model as the older Colleges for men, and the result of the teaching there showed, if any one had had any doubt of it before, that the female mind was quite as capable of profiting by the instruction imparted at the University as the other sex. At a late examination, two of the lady students, who were examined for the Cambridge Classical Tripos, were declared to have acquitted themselves in a manner equal to the male candidates who obtained honours. Another, who was examined in the papers set for the Mathematical Tripos obtained such a number of marks as would have placed a male candidate amongst the senior optimes. The female students of Merton Hall attended the general lectures of the University, and the results showed that young women had the capacity and industry to profit by the complete course of University teaching. In Edinburgh, during the last six years, classes of ladies had been taught by Professors in nearly the same methods as the men. In the University of Edinburgh, in the year 1869, some young women presented, themselves with the desire of becoming students of medicine, and they were received with a degree of cordial encouragement which was highly creditable to the leaders of opinion then in authority in that University. All the authorities welcomed them. They were admitted after deliberation, and by all the authorities of the University. The Medical Faculty, to whom the application of these ladies was addressed, after mature deliberation, passed a resolution in favour of admitting them as students of medicine. They forwarded that resolution to the Senatus, who, after discussion, also agreed to further the objects those ladies had in view. Then the University Court took the matter into serious consideration. They appointed a Committee consisting of persons of high standing, who had to consider the legal features of the case, and upon that Committee was the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord

  1529
  Advocate who now adorned this House, and who proposed a resolution in which was recorded in these terms—
  "That under the power given by the Universities Act for making internal improvements, it was the opinion of the University Court such regulations could he made as were necessary for the admission of these ladies as students."
  The University Council also concurred. The sanction of the Chancellor was given, and that was not merely the sanction of the Chancellor of the University, but of the highest legal authority in Scotland. It had also the sanction of the Lord Rector of the day, Lord Moncreiff, and by the unanimous act and consent of the University those regulations were made. They were clear, and provided that women should be admitted as students of medicine; that they were to be taught in separate classes, and one of the regulations was this—
  "All women who attended such classes should he subject to all the regulations as there were, or would he at any future time, in force in the University as to the matriculation of students, their attendance in classes, examinations, or otherwise."
  All went on well for two years. The ladies attended the teaching of the lecturers of the School of Medicine, whose opinion was shown by a memorial signed by all of them in favour of admitting women to graduation. No objection had been raised as to want of proficiency on the part of these ladies, or as to their conduct as students in the University. They were matriculated and recognized as students, and registered as students of medicine by the general Medical Council, and all went well for some time, but after they had passed through half of their course, a change came over the mind of the authorities of the University, or probably it was not so much a change of opinion in individuals as that those who had been in the minority previously had become the majority. But whatever might have been the reason, a cold shoulder was now shown to these ardent students of learning, and when they had got half-way through their course of studies, they were told that the Professors of Medicine, in the Medical Faculty who were to have taught them, were unable, for various reasons, to give them separate classes. That difficulty, however, was not an insurmountable one. It might have been got over in two ways; either substitutes
  1530
  might have been found or assistant Professors engaged in lieu of those who were unable to give separate classes. The ladies and their friends were prepared to guarantee whatever funds or fees might be necessary, and considering the small number of female students, some amount of guarantee might have been necessary. Or another course might have been adopted. The University Court had the legal power, if it chose, of relaxing the restriction which required the lectures to be given in the University, and might, as an exception or temporary arrangement, have allowed extra academical lectures to count in lieu of the usual academical lectures. If there had been a desire to get over the difficulty, that difficulty did not seem a very formidable one; but, on the contrary, indications appeared in the Senatus that objections would be raised to the graduation. The University Court did nothing to relieve the difficulty, and the only course which remained for these female students, was to take legal proceedings, in order to get their position established, and to obtain those rights which they claimed, and which were generally considered to have been granted. The suit was decided by the Lord Ordinary in their favour, and it appeared by the judgment that the University was bound to act upon that, which had been understood to be an agreement between itself and the students, and proceed to complete the course of their education. But, on appeal, that judgment was reversed. It was reversed by a small majority, and he might observe that in the minority were the Judges of the highest standing. The judgment went to the effect that the University Court, in passing those resolutions which enabled female students to commence their career in the University, had gone beyond its powers. Therefore matters came to a dead-lock. The interpretation put upon the statute by which powers were given to the Scotch Universities was the point upon which the question of illegality turned, and it appeared by the judgment that the University Court could no longer include among the "internal improvements" the admission of women as well as men, although the Act did not contain any distinct enactment upon the subject—the inference was drawn from other circumstances that the statute should be

  1531
  read in that way. Now, when that Act was passed, no question was raised in the House as to whether women would be admitted as well as men to the benefits of the University. Such an idea was not then brought before the public. No one foresaw at that time that women would desire, or would present themselves to receive the education of the University. Consequently, in passing that Act, there was no deliberate intention to exclude women. On the contrary, there was every reason to suppose that if the promoters of that Act had been called upon to decide whether women should receive the benefits of this education as well as men, there could be little doubt from the character of those who promoted the Bill, and the view which on similar questions had been taken by Parliament, that it would have been made clear in the Act, that the ordinary interpretation clauses which regulated the statute at the present day would have been adopted, and the words used in the masculine gender would have included the feminine. The practice in legislation was against making an invidious exception against women. They desired that law should be as equal as possible, and he was confident that that House would not have deliberately said that the great advantage of University education should be enjoyed exclusively by one sex; that the whole of the benefits of the Universities should be enjoyed by men. Still, whatever, might be the opinion of the people who passed that Act, he ventured to think that that House, if the subject had been brought formally before it—and he was very sorry that circumstances had prevented his Bill from reaching that stage at which the House could have decided—the decision of the House would not be that the exclusive principle was the best, but that so far as principle was concerned they should throw open as widely as possible these educational institutions to women. Certainly the case of hardship to these young women he had mentioned was very great. Lord Moncreiff, as one the Lords of Session, had stated that the regulations which were passed for the admission of women students did imply that they were also to receive graduations; and that was not merely the opinion of a great legal authority, but of one who was a party to the framing of the regulations, being in the
  1532
  University Court at the time in the position of Lord Rector. He stated, that in his opinion, these regulations had no object and no meaning as regarded these women who intended to follow medicine as a profession, than to enable them to qualify for graduation. On the face of these regulations these ladies had entered on the course of study prescribed, and had incurred the expense of going through a considerable portion of the curriculum, and to deny them the degree which was essential to their entering into the profession was in his opinion entirely unjust and unwarrantable. He really was surprised that those who represented the University, or who had petitioned in its name, should have found so much objection to the Bill which he had laid upon the Table of the House to give to the University the power which the decision of the Court of Session took from them. The Petition which was presented by the Senatus of the University of Edinburgh showed certainly a good deal of difficulty in finding reasons for objecting to such an alteration or amendment of the law. Most corporations, as well as individuals, were not averse to having additional power given them, particularly powers which they previously believed they had, and which they had proceeded to exercise. Persons who were conscious of rectitude of intention, and a desire to do good, were anxious to have as much authority given to them as they thought they could turn to a useful account; but the Senatus of the University of Edinburgh objected to an increase of their powers. They stated that the course they would pursue would incur odium and revive acrimony. They had more reason to fear the cogency of the arguments they would have to meet, and the prospect that responsibility might convert the minority into a majority. It had never been proposed in the slightest degree to interfere with the discretion which the University authorities ought to have. It was not proposed to control them in the slightest degree. It was not proposed to coerce them in any form or shape whatever. They simply proposed to give them that legal power which they themselves had believed they possessed. It was only proposed to give them the power of making such arrangements and such regulations as they might wish to make; and he certainly

  1533
  was surprised to find that they did not accept that power, which would have been more dignified in them, and more in accordance with the high position they held and had accepted voluntarily. And he should have thought that to high-minded men it would have been a relief to feel that the Legislature would take them out of the false position of having inflicted an injustice on women actuated by the honourable ambition of earning their livelihood by a useful profession, and would relieve them from the charge of breaking faith with those students who had entered their College on the understanding that they were to be allowed to complete their education and become eligible for degrees. Further than that, even if the authorities of the University of Edinburgh did not choose and did not intend to make use of it, still that was no reason why they should endeavour to prevent other Universities from obtaining these powers—Universities which might be more willing to use them. He saw by the Petitions signed by the majority of the Professors of St. Andrews that they on behalf of the University desired that such a legal power should be given. They must feel that whatever the difficulties were which had interfered with the development of this scheme in Edinburgh, those difficulties did not exist in St. Andrews. The arrangement would not be difficult by which a more complete teaching in the Medical Faculty could be established in St. Andrews; and that would most appropriately become a place where such women as wished to pursue their studies with a view to entering the profession could do so without objection. He thought it likely in the present state of opinion that such a law would not be used in Edinburgh immediately. The objection, it appeared, was very strong in the medical profession in Edinburgh against the possibility of competition from female doctors. It was not universal, because he observed in a Petition presented to the House of Lords by medical Professors of the University, 12 had signed in favour of admitting women to receiving degrees, and one of them was a Professor, well known for the high position which he held. He also saw that lecturers in the School of Medicine to the number of eight had signed a memorial in favour of that being conceded to ladies, and
  1534
  those gentlemen had much authority and weight on the subject, because they were the persons who had themselves taught the ladies during the two previous years. What he desired had been simply this—an affirmation of the principle that it was legal for a University, if it pleased, to give degrees to women. He did not want to enter into any of the details which might be left to the Universities. He saw by a Notice on the Paper that it was thought desirable that some inquiry should precede the making of that legal enactment. Now, he thought that though inquiries might be very useful, they ought to come after the principle had been determined and not before it, because the inquiry would be chiefly useful in regulating the details of study. The inquiry, for instance, would settle the arrangements of classes and the question of the age at which ladies should be admitted. Probably the age at which they should commence those studies which might tax their strength and strain their faculties should be later than in the case of men, and it might be found that 20 should be the minimum at which they should be admitted. Still, in whatever direction these inquiries should go, the regulations ought to be made in the Universities themselves, and should be influenced by circumstances and by the views of those Universities, and not be subject to the opinion of a general Commission. No doubt, it would be well if it were possible that every regulation on the subject should not confine itself to one University, but should be more general. The Parliament which gave the University the power of making "improvements" should declare what was meant by the term, and whether it did or did not extend to the admission of female students. They had gone upon the principle in later charters, certainly in later statutes, of saying that there should be no exclusion; that all classes and all denominations should be free to avail themselves of the advantages of the University; and it was then for Parliament to declare whether it would make an exclusion of one particular class, and that particular class—women. There might be some difficulties in the course he advocated, but these difficulties might easily be surmounted. They had not prevented many foreign Universities from admitting students of the female sex,

  1535
  and giving degrees to women as well as to men. The question of higher education for women had many ramifications, and so far as any matter relating to education was of national concern, it certainly might be said to have that national effect. It must indeed affect the industry of the country. It appeared from the Returns of the Registrar General that there were 3,000,000 of women earning their bread by manual labour of different sorts. There must be a very much larger number of women of the middle classes who were also obliged to labour for their living, and a much larger number would be able to find profitable industrial employment, if their education were not so deficient.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present:
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEresumed: In America and in Germany book-keeping and accounts were largely allotted to women. The wives and daughters of the tradesmen discharged those duties satisfactorily; but in this country, their deficiency of knowledge of arithmetic was a great bar to the employment of women in that capacity. A large number of women were driven to seek employment as governesses, with culture and acquirements of a very superficial character. There was one profession which women were now endeavouring to learn, and it was that profession for which they were by nature most peculiarly suited. A woman was in her best position by the side of the sick bed or in the hospital, and those whom nature had prepared to be nurses, art could easily make into doctors. A Petition had been presented to that House signed by above 16,000 women, declaring that they desired the opportunity of consulting good medical advisers or properly qualified persons of their own sex, and that they thought it a hardship that the laws of this country should lead to regulations that prevented any woman adopting medicine as a profession. He knew that there was a considerable objection to this in the medical profession as represented in the Universities; but he had observed that in cases of alterations or innovations proposed to be made in professions, whether military, naval, or legal, the public could not submit to professional opinion. The members of a profession
  1536
  were often unable to consider without bias innovations relating to themselves; and much as he respected the medical profession, he would still say that Parliament ought not to give undue attention to objections which they might raise in matters relating particularly to their own profession. Let them rather look to the needs and desire of the public at large, and they would see that female medical practitioners in London and Birmingham had met the wants of numerous patients. He had no doubt that each University was amply able to make such regulations as they might think advisable to prevent any abuse or any disadvantage accruing to it. He would not interfere with those domains which properly belonged to the Universities. They were there to declare that in those Universities in the North of this Island where a statute had passed giving authority to regulate the admission of students, there should be no exclusion, but that all of whatever sex might be admitted according to such regulations as the University might make. The laws of nature had established essential and eternal differences between man and woman, differences not to be obliterated by similarity of instruction, but had not made women unfit or unwilling to take a share with men in higher education. There was no division corresponding to that of sex in the range of human knowledge, which, whether acquired by man or woman, must consist of the same facts, the same laws of nature, the same science, and the same literature. There was no natural law, and there ought to be no human law, to banish women from the paradise of knowledge or from the cultivated exercise of their mental faculties. It must be a national loss if women were prevented from bringing their quota of mental activity to the general store of national wealth, and there could be no sound policy, from a national point of view, in discouraging the desire for education on the part of women; or in preventing that spirit of mental activity which was beginning to be manifested. He did hope, therefore, that the Government might take this matter into their consideration. It was a matter which it behoved the Government to undertake. They perceived the great hardship inflicted, he might say, the great scandal perpetrated, in connection

  1537
  with the University of Edinburgh. He meant that the University, believing that it had legal powers, had invited into its halls students whom it had afterwards to reject because it discovered that it had not the powers which it believed it had. There ought to be a University in which degrees could be given to women, and by which they could be admitted into the medical profession. There were 19 different avenues to the medical profession, and yet every one of them was closed against women. A large portion of the public were really desirous that properly qualified women should be able to practise medicine, and yet, if women desired at present to obtain degrees, they must go across the Channel to France, or to America, anywhere rather than to their own land, because England was the only one of the chief countries in Europe where it was impossible for them to obtain these degrees. If they might take the estimation in which women were held; if they might take the position of women as a test of the civilization of a country, then he was sorry to say that England did not stand high in that respect in comparison with other countries, and he hoped the day was not distant when that reproach might be removed from our country, and this grievance which he had attempted to explain might be redressed. [The right hon. Gentleman was precluded by the forms of the House from moving his Resolution.]
  SIR WYNDHAM ANSTRUTHERsaid, he had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "experience" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
  "That no such change should he made in the constitution and practice of the Universities of Scotland as would be involved in the admission and education of female students therein, until after further inquiry."
  He understood that by the forms of the House he could not move the Amendment; but he would say that if any change were to be made in the system now existing in the University of Edinburgh, that change ought to extend to all the Universities of the United Kingdom. He did not think it fair to the Universities of Scotland, that the experiment of admitting women to graduate in their Universities should be restricted to them. The Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman was nothing more nor
  1538
  less than an attack on the Edinburgh University. Legal disabilities always existed in that University against the admission of women, and these disabilities had existed in the Universities of Scotland ever since their foundation.
  DR. C. CAMERONsaid, the hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that the Motion of the right hon. Member for South Hants was an attack on the University of Edinburgh. If it had been considered so, it struck him it was because that University deserved to be attacked for the very scandalous manner in which it had behaved to the female medical students. It admitted them and allowed them to spend their time and money, and then, because it had changed its mind, prevented their availing themselves of the status which it had allowed them to acquire at much expenditure of trouble and labour, and obliged them to seek redress in a Court of Law. He contended it was most unfair for the University to allow these ladies to spend their time and money in a vain attempt to become medical practitioners, and then, after getting rid of them on the ground that their admission had from the first been illegal, to object to permissive powers being granted to themselves which would enable them, if they chose, to remedy the wrong that had been done. It seemed to him that there was one point connected with this matter which it was very desirable to draw attention to. The State had granted to a certain number of bodies throughout the country the monopoly of conferring degrees, which carried with them the civil right of practising medicine. In granting that monopoly to those bodies, it had taken care that all that those bodies should be entitled to demand was, that applicants for degrees should undergo a certain prescribed course of study, and that they should pass certain examinations intended to test their knowledge of their profession. It had taken care that the holding of heterodox opinions in medicine should be no bar to the acquisition of degrees which conferred the right to practise medicine; that the homeopath or the hydropath should equally with the allopath be entitled to degrees. The law presented no disqualification against women becoming medical practitioners, or being placed on the medical registers, and in that manner they became legally qualified

  1539
  medical practitioners. Under these circumstances, he thought that not only had the State the right to say that it was desirable the Universities should be in a position to grant these degrees if they chose to do so, but it had a right to say that if they did not grant such degrees to every person not incapacitated by law, including women, they should as licensed bodies suffer the same penalties they would incur if they endeavoured to exclude persons from exercising their civil right of practising medicine in consequence of their holding what might be considered heretical. opinions. But the Resolution before the House did not go so far as that. It simply said that as the University of Edinburgh had encouraged these ladies to enter into its doors as students of medicine, it was expedient that legal powers should be given to the Universities of Scotland to make such regulations as they thought fit for the admission and complete education of female students. Having admitted them, the University of Edinburgh was bound to carry out its obligations, and if it did not care to do so, if it chose to incur the odium of refusing to avail itself of the power proposed to be conferred by the right hon. Gentleman, why then its character would be so much the worse. But beyond that there was nothing. He had read the Petitions alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman carefully, and more miserable specimens of the want of all reasoning he never met with. The Petition of the Senatus Academicus of the University of Edinburgh was signed by 12 out of 30 Professors at a time when only 4 out of the 18 or 20 Professors known to be in favour of the Bill were not present. It was urged that the provisions of the Bill were vague and general, and that they failed to take into account the legal difficulties likely to arise. He asked why this consideration had not been taken into account when ladies had been allowed to spend their time and money in the attempt to fit themselves for the duties of medical practitioners, and why the University objected to obtain permissive powers when the battle had been half fought? He objected to the proposition for a Royal Commission, simply because a number of ladies had already gone into preliminary training, and their course of studies had been
  1540
  brought to a dead-lock. The time which would be absorbed in the inquiries of the Commission would to these ladies be a further loss and injury. He denied that the medical profession was averse to the admission of female practitioners. The Petitions which were brought forward against the Bill were to his mind the most convincing arguments in its favour. Why, he asked, should anyone petition against a permissive power if it was not likely that that permissive power would be used? He believed that the University of St. Andrews was not unwilling, if permissive power were conferred on it, to grant degress to women. He believed that the opposition to the Motion was not an opposition arising from any apprehended evil results to Edinburgh University or Glasgow University, but from a jealousy lest any other University should avail itself of powers which these sister Universities did not like. He saw a Petition from the Principal of Glasgow University against the Bill. That Petition was signed by the Principal in the name of the University; but the Principal's name was appended to a Petition in favour of the Bill, which had been sent in his non-official capacity. On the back of the Bill he found the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton, the Dean of Faculties of Glasgow University; and the mover of the resolution at the University Court, which was one of the preliminary steps for the admission of ladies into the Edinburgh University, was none other than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate of Scotland. It could not be said that those ladies went into the matter without every encouragement. But it had been objected that the Resolution should not have been made to apply to Scotch Universities alone, and that it was an attempt at the expression of an exceptional opinion with regard to them. Surely the University of Edinburgh had assumed an exceptional position which justified the Resolution. There had been no similar step taken in England or in Ireland; but there was an injustice to be remedied in Scotland, and, therefore, it was proper that that injustice should be remedied.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: If the House looks carefully at the terms of the Motion of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper-Temple), it will be clear that he begins with a particular grievance

  1541
  experienced by a few ladies who desired to graduate in medicine at the University of Edinburgh, and that he concludes by a general affirmation of the House that legal powers should be given to the Universities of Scotland to educate and graduate all women, not in Medicine only, but in all the faculties—Arts, Law, Divinity, and Medicine. I only desire at present that the House should fully understand the issue upon which they are called to vote. They are not asked by this Resolution merely to affirm that a general University education is desirable for women, but that the Universities of Scotland be empowered to train them for all the learned professions. That is a large issue to raise upon a particular grievance, but that is the object of my right hon. Friend. When he first showed me the draft of a Bill which he proposed to introduce on the subject, it was applicable to all the Universities in the United Kingdom, and contained that broad claim. When I saw the Bill in print, it had become narrowed to the Scotch Universities, which were to be made the corpus vile for the great experiment; but the experiment was to be at the option of a Select Committee of half-a-dozen gentlemen called the University Court, who might or might not subject the whole body of their University to the crucial experiment, while this House, whose object is to legislate, was relieved from its duty, which they would have cast upon a Select University Committee, though not selected for that purpose. I asked my right hon. Friend to give the Universities of Scotland a fortnight to consider this grave proposal before he pressed his Bill, and I see that that reasonable request upon my part is construed into a Machiavellian scheme to defeat the Bill of my right hon. Friend in an un-Parliamentary manner. The Motion now before us asks us to pledge ourselves that legal powers should be given to the Universities of Scotland to open up all their educational resources to female students. Why limit the powers to the Universities of Scotland? If it be right that we should give legal powers to them, it is equally right that such powers should also be given to the Universities of England and Ireland. The constituted authorities of the Scotch Universities have not petitioned you to grant them
  1542
  these privileges. Neither the University Court, the Senatus Academicus, nor the General Council—the three constituted bodies—has asked us to give further powers for that purpose. It is true that eight out of the 14 Professors of St. Andrews have petitioned in favour of the Resolution; but they, in the whole body of the University Council, are only eight out of 1,200 members. In Edinburgh, 12 out of the 35 Professors have petitioned; but the body of its members of Council is upwards of 3,600. As Professors, their evidence is valuable, as an indication that they are prepared to teach; but beyond that, their voices in favour of or against the proposal are no greater or less than those of an equal number of the members of the University. The opinion of that large body, so far as I am aware, has never found expression. Suppose you pass the Resolution, what would be the result? You must be prepared to follow it up by a humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that new charters be given to the four Universities. They cannot admit women to the full privileges of the Universities, under the present charters, and you are not accustomed by statute to over-ride the fundamental constitution of Universities; but even if you did so, you would not be one step nearer the attainment of the end. The Scotch Universities are poor, and have not the means at their disposal of trying large experiments. Let us confine our attention at present to the first part of my right hon. Friend's Resolution—the case of female medical students. In Scotland, as elsewhere in the country, there is a strong repugnance to mixed classes of male and female medical students. It is thought that such subjects as anatomy, physiology, and midwifery cannot well be taught to mixed classes of young men and young women. Therefore, by common consent, the classes hitherto attempted have been separate. The whole organization of our Universities up to this moment has been for male students, and all their resources are adapted to this purpose. In Edinburgh, for instance, we have a prosperous medical school—much the largest in the Kingdom. We cannot suddenly fit that organization, for female students in separate classes, without a large augmentation of the resources of the University.

  1543
  The present Professors, having classes of 100 and 200 male students, who require full attention, cannot divert a moiety of that to a new class of female students. The result would be, that the educational resources of the Medical Faculty would be rendered unproductive both to the males and females. The advocates of the Resolution know that, and argue that female medical students may be taught by extra academical teachers outside the walls of the University. But although Edinburgh allows a certain number of subjects to be taken at other Universities, and a limited number at recognized medical schools, still the fundamental principle of its constitution is, that the University is a teaching, and not a graduating body. The University cannot delegate all its teaching functions to external teachers, more than it could delegate its graduating functions to non-academical examiners. To show that the University is chiefly frequented for its teaching instead of for its graduation, I may mention that of all its medical students, only 48 per cent graduate, the others being content with lower medical qualifications than the University degrees. Take it in another way. The University allows two of the four years for study, to be taken at courses of lectures outside the walls of the University. Of the 246 graduates of the last three years, only five have availed themselves of this privilege of two years, and seven have taken one year outside. It is clear, then, that to educate women outside the University would not give them academical advantages. To admit that female students should be educated anywhere and then graduate within the University, would be subversive of its constitution; for if you gave this liberty to females, you must extend it to males, and the Edinburgh University teaching system would become the London University graduating system, which would be an entire change in its constitution. And such a system would be particularly injurious to Scotland, where there is no resident collegiate system. Our students when they come up to our Universities from country parishes, are often raw enough as it is, but what they would turn out under a mere graduating system, without collegiate training, I can only speculate. If the House follow up the Resolution
  1544
  by enacting that Scotch Universities may or shall open themselves to female students, it must either subvert their present constitution, or largely augment their educational resources. I am sure it will take the latter and not the former alternative; but it must be prepared to do so. If the experiment were made upon Oxford, Cambridge, or Trinity College, Dublin, we might reasonably expect from their large resources, that they should find funds for the trial of this great experiment in female education. But, when the poverty of the Scotch Universities necessitates that we should and them by a small annual Vote of £18,000, how can we expect, without a large augmentation of that vote, that they, instead of the rich Universities of England and Ireland, should be enabled to try the important experiment of whether the institutions which have been organized for and adapted to men may be made suitable for women. I am desirous, if possible, to avoid the irritating aspect of the question before us. Certain ladies were grievously disappointed because, having by uncommon perseverance succeeded in placing themselves on the matriculation roll of Edinburgh University, they did not succeed in completing their education. From what I have said the reason is obvious. They came in as an experiment, and that experiment failed. They ascertained two facts, with great hardship to themselves—first that the educational resources of the University were inadequate to educate female students, and second that the legal powers of the University were insufficient to crown that education by graduation, if the resources had been sufficient. The hardship to the ladies who made the experiment was great; but its failure cannot justify legislation for this particular case, without full consideration of its relations to the general questions involved in it. The Resolution will not help on the desired reform by a single step, unless the House is prepared to follow it up much further, by adapting all the Universities of the Kingdom, both as to their constitution and resources, for this great development of their educational functions. I do not think that Government could take up a higher or a nobler work than that of opening up our schools and Universities to women. But when they engage in this work, it must not be approached

  1545
  in the spirit of the Resolution. They must make ample provisions for the work being performed; for it is clear that institutions limited to one half of the human race, cannot adapt themselves to the other half without much preparation and organization. It may be that the Universities, which by long experience have been adapted to men, may not in their present form be fitted for women. There is, at least, sufficient doubt on the subject to make us cautious in legislation. So far as American experience of mixed Colleges has gone, it appears, on the ground of intellectual teaching and morality, that the fitness of both sexes is the same—but on the ground of health, it is still doubtful whether women can bear the strain of University studies. This subject is being fully discussed at present by American medical men, and is exciting keen interest in this country. I do not attach much force to the objection, because I think it could be obviated by a postponement of the age at which female students might be matriculated. But I do not think it improbable that a different course of studies ought to be followed for male and female students. We ought to give the women of this country a higher and nobler education, instead of the narrow and trivial education which they now receive. But if our Universities were thrown open tomorrow to women, are there half-a-dozen in any University town who by their school training could follow the course snecessary for one of our degrees? The degrees in Arts, Law, Divinity, or for Doctor of Medicine, all involve a knowledge of Greek. I know of only two small schools in which that is given as a subject of female education. That which I have given as an illustration in regard to Greek holds also, in a less degree, as to other fundamental studies, such as Latin and mathematics. Therefore you must make female degrees lower than male degrees—that is, you must fundamentally change the educational requirements of graduation, or you must revolutionize the preparatory schools of the country in regard to female education. The latter course is devoutly to be wished; but it will not be attained by the Resolution. Whenever the Legislature undertakes to discuss this question with a serious intention of action, I will range myself on
  1546
  the side of those who desire to open up our schools and colleges to women on conditions suitable to the sex. But I cannot support the Resolution, because, were it passed, it would disturb everything and settle nothing, and because, in the present condition of our Universities, new hopes would be raised which could only result in fresh and bitter disappointments.
  MR. STANSFELDbelieved he was only following recent precedent in rising immediately after his right hon. Friend to state why he took a somewhat different view from him on the subject before the House. His right hon. Friend who on the present occasion, at least, was rather illogical in his conclusions, contended that the adoption of the Resolution would be of no avail, unless the House were prepared to extend to the Universities of Scotland, or some one of them, the means necessary to carry it into effect. His answer to that statement was to entreat the House and the Government to take the earliest opportunity of dealing generously and liberally with the question of the education of women. There were two questions involved in this subject which the House might fairly consider and decide—a question of public policy, and a question of private grievance. There was a question of principle involved, as to whether women ought to have the desired facilities for obtaining a, University education, and that was obviously a matter for the consideration and decision of Parliament. Then, there was the question whether, in their conditions and circumstances, the Universities could offer those facilities to women who might apply for them, and that was clearly a matter for the consideration and decision of the local authorities. He entirely concurred with the opinion expressed, that great difficulties existed; but they were of a character which the authorities of the Universities might themselves remove. What was the history of the movement? In 1869 a number of ladies applied to the University of Edinburgh for medical matriculation and their application was promptly acceded to by the University authorities. Difficulties, however, subsequently arose, and the authorities took shelter in the meshes of the law. The ladies applied to the Law Courts and the Judges by a bare majority decided that the University had

  1547
  not power to receive lady students. The University should then have applied to Parliament to amend the law; but instead of that, when a Bill was introduced by his right hon. Friend, the first Petition against it came from the University of Edinburgh. It had been said that the question of the education of women in the Universities should be relegated to the local authorities, and was not worthy the consideration of Parliament. He was entirely opposed to that opinion. The mode in which the education should be given was a minor one, and one to be decided by the local authorities, and the question whether facilities ought to be afforded to women ought not to be left to them; but the House would not err in enabling the Scotch Universities to carry out what the Edinburgh University proposed to do, and if it was retarded for the want of additional funds, he had no hesitation in saying that no expenditure of public money could be more useful or creditable to the Government than voting, for the first time in its history, the means for opening University education and the medical career to its female population. The House having decided to supply the means for affording additional facilities for the education of women, the question as to the fitness of the Universities to supply it, might very safely be left to the Universities to work out. An hon. Baronet on the opposite benches (Sir Wyndham Anstruther) had recommended the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the general question of the disabilities of women with respect to education, but for his own part he trusted that neither the House nor the Government would lend itself to such a proposal. Royal Commissions were too often the refuge of the destitute in opinion. The question whether women ought to have those educational advantages afforded them was one for discussion in that House and for the decision of Parliament. Hon. Members did not want any Commission at all to tell them how to vote on that question of principle. If it was decided in their favour, there was at least one University in Scotland which would give women the advantages of a good, general, higher education, and especially a medical education. The House had to consider not only as to what was right in principle, but also as to what was fitting in point
  1548
  of time and the demands of public opinion. He thought that the numerous Petitions which had been presented, and the general movement out-of-doors on the subject, showed that a demand had arisen for the admission of women into the Universities, which, sooner or later—and the sooner the better—they would be obliged to concede. The success of the Cambridge University examinations, and the large proportion of female students who presented themselves and who were successful, was an encouragement to extend the system, and to give women the advantage of a liberal education. Why should that not be done in the Universities which was the rule in all out-door lectures on scientific or other subjects where men and women assembled together? During the' last seven years the tickets for ladies attending the classes of the Edinburgh Ladies' Educational Association had varied from 277 to 313, and the classes for ladies in addition to the mixed classes were also largely attended. In face of such facts and in face of the demand on the part of the ladies themselves, it behoved Parliament to be very careful in barring the doors against young women who desired to enter into an educated profession, by artificial, unnecessary, and unjustifiable restrictions. There was no restriction placed by the Common Law upon women entering into trade; they were only excluded from the professions; and those who were afraid that there would be an "ugly rush" to the professions if they were thrown open showed very little reliance upon those disqualifications of nature and sex on the part of women on which they professed to found their objections to remove their disabilities. He could conceive of no reason why ladies should be debarred from entering the medical profession. The same qualities which made the best nurses would, by proper education, qualify them specially to act as physicians in all ailments affecting women and children. Apart from the private advantages which would arise to individuals, the public interest would be largely promoted by such a change of our present system, and he heartily supported the Motion of his right hon. Friend.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that that question was brought before the House in a particularly inconvenient

  1549
  form. It was not one question, but two distinct questions. On the one hand, it was put as a breach of contract between certain excellent high-spirited ladies and the University of Edinburgh. That was the question raised by the right hon. Member for South Hants (Mr. Cowper-Temple), but all the speakers who succeeded him on the other side of the House, with those fraternal differences natural to the Opposition front Bench, superadded a subject of discussion not upon the Notice Paper—the educational equality, or the reverse of women and men. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last raised another interesting and important question—the value of Royal Commissions. He said that they were "the refuge of the destitute" for those who had no case and no argument. When he heard a right hon. Gentleman who for five years had been in that Cabinet of all the Talents, which stirred all things in heaven and earth, and which above all things had rejoiced in Royal Commissions, say that Royal Commissions were only "a refuge for the destitute" he was bound to accept that description of them. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) now came to the women. He claimed for himself, and for any other man in the House who was opposed to so-called "women's rights," to be as earnest advocates as any in the world for the solid and more complete education of women as any enthusiast who claimed for them graduation in Medicine, Law, or what not. That demand had nothing to do with the question whether men and women were better or worse than each other. That was a question not upon the Paper, but it had been raised. The answer was another question. "Are the two sexes the same, or are they different?" The right hon. Gentleman must take the whole of the consequences of his argument. It was no more derogatory for women to be excluded from the universities than for young men to be excluded from a finishing academy for young ladies where the drawing might be exquisite, the music sublime, and the dancing ethereal. If women were admitted to the Universities on the same terms as men—that meant Scholarships, Fellowships, Masterships, Professorships—it was impossible to escape from the logic of this sequitur. If there were "sweet girl graduates," there must also be "prudes for proctors." This might
  1550
  possibly do for Edinburgh, but he should be surprised to see Trinity or St. John's ruled by a mistress instead of a Master. [An Hon. MEMBER: Why not?] Why not? The hon. Member who kindly interrupted him had made his argument for him. For his part he would not care if the opposite Bench from which the interruption came were filled with old women, or if the great Liberal party were led by one of those most respectable members of society. The hon. Gentleman's interruption had really brought the matter to a definite issue. There were things beyond the power of Parliaments or even of Motions on going into Committee of Supply, and amongst them were the correlative position and duties of men and women. He protested accordingly against our old Universities being revolutionized in behalf of so doubtful an experiment as that which underlay the Motion of the right hon. Member for South Hants. The local examinations for women, supplemented by the so-called "University Extension," established to its great honour by the University which he had the honour to represent, was an admirable movement well carried out; but its merit consisted in the fact, that the encouragement it gave to female study was so arranged that it lay outside the University itself. A University was not a mere examination hall or lecture room, as the right hon. Member for Halifax seemed to think. If it were, the case would be different. No; a University was a home for students—a school for discipline—an Alma Mater—training youths from point to point, from object to object, and thus leading up to a complete education—the training morally as well as intellectually of each individual. Let those who wanted this sort of training for women found a University for women, conducted by women, devoted to the objects and duties in life which belonged to women. That would be a noble work; but let its founder leave to the men their Universities. The right hon. Member for Halifax said that because women were such admirable nurses he would make them physicians. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) would therefore let them remain nurses. God and nature had fitted them for it. A good nurse needed clear and definite medical principles. It was very well, then, that women should have their medical education, but let its

  1551
  end be the diploma of nurse, and not of surgeon. God sent women to be ministering angels, to smooth the pillow, minister the palliative, whisper words of heavenly comfort to the tossing sufferer. Let that continue woman's work. Leave the physician's function, the scientific lore, the iron wrist and iron will to men. In behalf of woman's genuine dignity he protested against the crude fantastic theories of those who would merely bring down and pervert women into feeble and deteriorated men.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSregretted the right hon. Gentleman was prevented by the Forms of the House from putting the Question, for if he had done so, he (Mr. Williams) should have had great pleasure in going into the same Lobby with him, inasmuch as he himself, when studying medicine, had been among the first to advocate the medical education of The hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) wished to confine women to the occupation of nurses. The Resolution did not propose to in any way fetter the action of the Universities; but merely to enable them to make arrangements for giving medical instruction to women, should they desire it, and he could see no reason why the power should not be granted. He believed that a large number of the rank and file of the medical profession looked with intense jealousy to the higher education of women in medicine.
  SIE EDWARD COLEBROOKEthought, from the speeches of the two preceding speakers, that the real question they had now to consider was, not merely whether the House should press the Scotch Universities to make regulations for the teaching of women, but whether it should go a step further, and make an appeal to the Government to grant the money to enable those Universities to carry out the objects of that Motion. Before hastily adopting that course, they ought to inquire whether the same ends might not be attained by simpler means. There were in existence different licensing bodies, through, whom medical degrees for women might be obtained—a method for trying the proposed experiment which he should prefer to the costly one of equipping the Scotch Universities with all the appliances for educating women. The University of London was different from the Scotch
  1552
  Universities, not being a teaching body, but a body for conferring degrees both in Arts and in Medicine, and having Colleges and schools affiliated to it throughout the country. He would suggest, then, that women who desired to possess medical degrees should pursue their medical studies at some affiliated College, and proceed thence to their degree. If, however, they were willing to meet the difficulty by granting sums of money to the Universities, he, for one, would not stand in the way.
  SIR WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELLbelieved the House and the country were much indebted to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper-Temple) for bringing the question forward. The right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had accused the University Court at Edinburgh of breach of contract; but, in reality, it could be blamed for nothing more than having mistaken the extent of its powers. A certain number of ladies, who were described as very high-spirited and ardent, desired to enter that University as medical students, and at last by their importunity they almost compelled the Court to receive them. The Court, however, entered into no contract, except to give them such teaching as the University afforded. There was not a word said about graduation. Both those who wished to admit the ladies, and those who wished to keep them out, by a curious coincidence, were entirely silent as to the important point of graduation; but afterwards questions arose which caused the matter to be decided. It was taken before the legal tribunals of the country, and the result was adverse to the ladies. He thought that had the University authorities of the day foreseen what would have happened, they would not have allowed the ladies to enter at all. The only blame that could be attached to them was that they yielded to importunity, and miscalculated the extent of their own powers. To take a recent example in politics; he did not think they could fairly accuse the Members of the late Government who appealed to the country at the last General Election with a breach of contract, because they were unable to carry out all those promises made by them-selves or on their behalf. The immediate question which brought on that discussion was, that a considerable number

  1553
  of ladies desired to enter the medical profession. It had been shown by the success which had attended some ladies who had already entered that profession, that the people appreciated their services, and he was therefore of opinion that it would be the duty of the Government and of Parliament, at the fitting moment, to consider the proper way of facilitating female medical education. But, because a small number of ladies had desired to enter the medical profession, it was hardly reasonable to propose that all the Universities of Scotland should be empowered to grant degrees in other faculties in which the ladies had never asked for them. Of the four Universities upon which it was proposed by the Resolution to confer those powers, he believed that three—speaking through their constituted authorities—had expressed their unwillingness to accept them. The University of St. Andrews, he was told, had manifested some willingness to accept the powers; but, even upon this, some doubt had been cast by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh. However this might be, he must ask the House to look at what had happened in the University of Edinburgh itself, where the trial was made. Of the 12 Professors who formed the Medical Faculty in that University, three only were willing to undertake the duty of teaching the female medical students. Of these three gentlemen, one found that the time which he had been wont to devote to private research was so entirely absorbed by his new duties, that he was obliged to withdraw from them. Another found that the exertion required was so great that his health suffered, and his family compelled him also to withdraw. The third gentleman, more enthusiastic perhaps than his colleagues, continued his duties until his health broke clown so entirely that he was obliged to seek restoration in the South of Europe; and for two sessions his class had been taught by a substitute. Now, the experience of these three learned gentlemen was not such as to induce other Professors to undertake the duties. In fact, they could not have female classes in the Scotch Universities without almost doubling the medical Professorial staff. How was that to be accomplished? It could not be done by the Universities themselves, because
  1554
  they had no resources available for so costly a purpose. It could only be done by the and of Parliament and the Government. He would, therefore, personally urge upon the Government and the Lord Advocate that the question should be taken up, and that by a Royal Commission, by examination, or in such other way as might seem to them more appropriate, they should ascertain the most efficient means of promoting the higher education of women in the Universities of Scotland and generally throughout the Empire.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he would like to remove some of the fallacies and erroneous impressions which he found existed in the House. In the first place, the women did not seek for degrees either in Divinity, Law, or Philosophy; and as regarded the remarks made by the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh, about the impossibility of getting medical education for a few ladies in that institution, without the expenditure of a large sum of money, and without coming to Parliament for a grant for additional accommodation, he might state that, some time ago, it was found that considerable additional room was required for the medical students, and no sooner were the requirements of the University made known, than £65,000 was subscribed for the additional rooms required, and these would accommodate 50 times the number of ladies that were likely to ask for medical tuition. Another fallacy was that there should be some kind of middle-class schools for bringing up these ladies to a higher standard of general education before they became medical students. No medical student who desired a degree could obtain it without undergoing a preliminary examination in Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, Greek, Latin, and other branches of general culture. On these subjects the ladies had been examined and had passed all that was required just as creditably as the young men. The House ought to bear in mind that there was a great difference between the Scotch and the English Universities. In Edinburgh there was no provision for students sleeping or dining, and the building was simply a large collection of class-rooms, where the students went and got instruction from able Professors. There was not even a chapel attached to the University. The discus-

  1555
  sion which had taken place had mainly turned upon imaginary difficulties. The right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh spoke in favour of the principle of promoting female education in medicine, but in opposition to his beloved principle, he brought forward every possible and imaginary difficulty to prevent its being carried into effect. Reference had been made to the attitude of the University; but the opposition did not come from the University proper—from the thousands of graduates who elected the right hon. Gentleman—but from the 40 or 50 Professors who formed the Senatus. There were four Faculties. Divinity, Law, Medicine, and Philosophy, forming the Senatus. Of the Medical Faculty, there was a considerable majority against the admission of ladies; but of the other three, taken together, there was a large majority in their favour. It was, thus, entirely a medical question. Having been sent to Parliament by 11,400 electors, he had had a good opportunity of ascertaining what the opinions of the inhabitants of Edinburgh were on the matter, and especially as the University, unlike those in England, was a cherished child of the people. The University of Edinburgh was not endowed like the English Universities; it was established, supported, and governed by the people of Edinburgh until the last 18 years, when a new constitution was given to it by Parliament. With respect to "town and gown" jealousies, there were not any, for there was not a "gown" to be seen in the University except those of the Professors. If this were a question to be decided by the intelligent inhabitants of Edinburgh, nine-tenths would vote in its favour; and if it were not for the jealousy of a few of the medical Professors there would be no difficulty in effecting a settlement. If two or three of the Professors would only take a voyage round the world, the whole question would be satisfactorily settled before they returned. It had been said that the question might be settled by the ladies getting Universities for themselves. The Bill introduced would, practically, have accomplished this, by opening up to them the University of St. Andrews, which, with the assistance of other Professors and lecturers of ability, whom that University would have called in, would have accomplished this object. The hon.
  1556
  Baronet opposite (Sir William Maxwell) said the Professors who had been instructing the ladies in the University of Edinburgh fell ill. Now, he (Mr. M'Laren) had known one of them, and he had been ill some time before he undertook to instruct the ladies; and he did not hesitate to say that instructing the ladies had no more to do with his illness than looking at the moon through a telescope. The ladies were willing to pay for their education, and where the male students paid only three or four guineas, the ladies were willing to pay, and had paid, ten guineas, so that money was no obstacle. There was no difficulty, in fact, except want of will, and that arose from medical prejudice—at least that was the opinion of the great majority of the people in Edinburgh. It had been correctly stated that the lady students were harshly used. He mentioned that fact to show how they had obtained the sympathy of the public. The ladies in leaving the class-rooms were ungallantly pelted with mud by male students, which led one of them to use strong words respecting one of them—an assistant to a distinguished Professor. He raised an action against the lady for defamation, and it was understood that he was encouraged to do so by other parties. He would not say by whom. But the result was that that assistant's grief was assuaged by one farthing damages. The sequel, however, was singularly distressing. According to the practice of the Scotch Courts, even a farthing damages carried costs, which in this case, including both sides, amounted to £800 or £900. A subscription was at once got up to pay the expenses, which showed that the feeling of the City was in behalf of the ladies. In the second action against the University, the ladies again lost, the expenses being £700 or £800, which were also paid by public subscription. He mentioned these facts to show that the City of Edinburgh had no tolerance or sympathy with the bigotry manifested by a small section of the Professors.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the question which had been raised did not merely affect the Scotch Universities, but that it had a much larger bearing than was supposed by many hon. Members. Were the Universities to supply medical men for the use of the public, or

  1557
  were they to exist merely for them selves? He, however, did not think they ought to confine themselves as to how the question might affect medical men. There were three facts, the first of which was, that during the last 30 or 40 years, according to the Census, there had been a steady decrease in the number of medical men in England. A second was, that every effort at the same time had been made, by legislation, induced by medical men and otherwise, to get rid of quacks, and they were as nearly as possible choked out; and the third was, that at the same period, step by step with the decrease of medical men, there had been an increase of the death rate. There was also this other fact, that no man was allowed to die without a doctor to help death to kill him, and if the doctor was not called in, there was a great difficulty in getting the man buried. There was considerable inconvenience in a man being kicked about, and so he took the lesser of two evils. [Laughter.] Well, there seemed, great difficulty in the matter, and if medical schools could not supply well qualified men, why should they not take ladies? If the smaller number of duly-qualified men could keep that ugly customer, Death, away, there would be no occasion for those who were less qualified to come in and fill the gap. But this was not so. They had the fact, as respected the males—that as they decreased the doctors, they increased the death-rate. He did not mean to say that the doctors killed or cured people; they did their best, no doubt, whatever way it might be; but he did not see why others who wished to try to help us should not be allowed to do so. That it would involve inconveniences he could quite understand; but a University existed for the convenience of the public. If there were medical men enough he would not say a word, but with the facts that were staring us in the face, it was well that public attention should be called to the subject. There were too few occupations open to women; and in this and other professions there were not men enough to do the work to be done. Medical men were wanted all over the world, and it was a great mistake, if persons of the other sex could be equally qualified, that they should be denied the opportunity of qualifying themselves.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that, as the Member for the two Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen, he wished to say a few words with reference to the Motion before the House. Now, in the first place, the question had been treated by the right hon. Member for Halifax as if it were something different from what was raised by the Motion; because he entered generally into the question of the higher education of females, and advocated the immediate giving of a grant to advance the higher education of women throughout the Kingdom generally. It was unfortunate that this did not occur to the right hon. Gentleman at an earlier period, when he had some connection with the Government, and when, if the views of his Colleagues had agreed with his, they might more probably have arrived at a fruition than now, when he had ceased to be a Member of the Government. But the question really at issue, as raised by the Motion, had reference more immediately to the matter alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last—namely, the education of females with a view to their entering the medical profession." He (the Lord Advocate) had no prejudice whatever against the higher education of women. He had not even any prejudice against their education with a view to entering the medical profession. In fact, he was a member of the Governing Body of the Edinburgh University at the time they resolved to allow the ladies to become students. That showed that he had no original prejudice against their being admitted to the profession. The first step that was taken by these ladies—and strange to say they were all English ladies—[Mr. M'LAREN: Not all.] He thought they had all been; but there might be an exception or two, and the hon. Member knew better than he did. "Well, the first application was to admit them to the classes along with male students. The authorities objected to that, and said it was quite inconsistent with their views of conducting such an institution, to permit mixed classes. They were willing, however, that the Professors should give them special education, and three of the Professors undertook to give them private tuition. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, he thought, had been too hard on some of these Professors, seeing that they were anxious that the ladies should receive

  1559
  instruction, and put themselves to some inconvenience to give it to them. Those gentlemen found that they could not teach a class of men and a class of ladies on the same day, and the result was, that the teaching of women had broken down, even on the part of those who were sincerely desirous of seeing them educated. Difficulties arose as to where the female students could get graduation. It should be observed that 48 per cent of the students who attended the College did not graduate in the University, so that it did not at all follow from females being admitted as students, that they would also graduate, though he quite admitted that it was contemplated at the time when they were first received as students that they would do so. It had now been decided by the Courts of Law that graduation could not be obtained. He regretted exceedingly that these ladies had been put to inconvenience, but the question was, whether the remedy proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper-Temple) was the right one. The right hon. Gentleman's proposition was in effect, that because there had been a breach of contract on the part of the University of Edinburgh, there should be an interference with the constitution of the three other Universities. He did not see exactly the logic of that proposition; and as the Scotch Universities were teaching Universities, which could not teach female students without a double supply of Professors, the remedy proposed would involve a large expenditure upon separate medical classes, for no member would support mixed classes for medical study. If the University of Edinburgh had been morally wrong, let that University bear the blame. It appeared to him that the proposal that the London University, being an Examining Body, should consider the question of the desirableness of giving degrees to persons who did not require to be taught in classes, and who were able to prove their proficiency, would be a solution of the question. He was glad to observe that a short time ago a resolution for that purpose was passed by the Convocation, and that it now only required the assent of the Senate. There would not be many applications for medical degrees, for ladies would, he supposed, practise mainly in the towns. He was not aware of the material decrease in the number of me-
  1560
  dical men; but he believed the death-rate had been decreasing. He thought it probable that the discussion which had taken place that night would have the effect of placing the ladies referred to in a position in which they would be enabled to obtain access to the medical profession. He did not speak as representing the Government; but he would communicate what had occurred in the debate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was mainly concerned in the increased expense of separate classes.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, it was quite true that the Convocation of the London University had passed the resolution to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred. But it was not certain that that resolution would—although he hoped that it might—be confirmed by the Senate. The right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had first conceded that the admission of women to degrees was highly desirable, and had then complained of the University of Edinburgh being made a corpus vile for the purpose of this experiment. If he (Sir Francis Goldsmid) had any connection with the University of London, he should think it an honour to have such an experiment made in that institution. He hoped that, at all events, whether in the Scotch University or in the University of London, the great object of admitting women to degrees would before long be attained.

COLONIAL ACTS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he had a Motion on the Paper to the following effect, although he could not, in accordance with the Forms of the House, propose it:—
"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that in cases in which the constitutionality of Acts of Colonial Legislatures, transmitted for her approval, is in question, that the matter shall be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who shall he authorized to hear arguments on both sides, and to report thereon for her Majesty's consideration."
He considered it was an important question, and would call on the House to consider how dangerous and difficult must be the relations of colonies which, after their legislation had been carried through—legislation often referring to questions exciting keen party and political feeling—must submit it to authorities, such as the Law Officers of the

1561
Crown, before whom they had no representation, and to whom they could present no argument. Differences might arise from that state of things which might lead to serious collisions between the Colonial and Imperial Governments. For instance, in 1873, an Act had been passed by the Legislature of the Dominion, which was declared by the Colonial Office, in a telegram, to be illegal. The remedy which he proposed was that instead of referring the question of the legality or illegality of an Act which had been transmitted to the Colonial Office for Her Majesty's approval to the Law Officers of the Crown, it should be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that the Government of the colony should have the opportunity of arguing the question before that Committee. There had been instances in which this course had been adopted, as in Judge Barry's case and the case of the Bishop of Natal. He would further add that Lord Cardwell, an eminent authority on questions of the kind, had given his sanction to the suggestion which he (Mr. Jenkins) now brought before the House. It was to be recommended, he thought, on the ground that it would tend to increase the independent attitude of the colonies and dependencies of the country, and to prevent collisions between great senatorial bodies; and there could, moreover, be no knowing how soon the course he advocated might possess practical value.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that he regretted the hon. and learned Gentlemen had brought the subject forward, it being inconvenient on account of the hon. and learned Gentleman's position as Agent General for the Dominion, as it might be inferred there from that he represented the Dominion that evening. The hon. and learned Member had spoken of the working of the present system in reference to that matter as having created some difficulty in the working of the Confederation Act of North America, but there was no record at the Colonial Office of any complaint or remonstrance on that subject having been made to the late or the present Government. If any such feeling of dissatisfaction as the hon. and learned Gentleman adverted to had really existed, surely some representation to that effect would have been sent home
1562
from time to time by the Representative of Her Majesty in the colony. [Mr. JENKINS said, he had called attention to facts, but had not spoken of feeling.] The hon. and learned Gentleman had described the present method of determining the constitutionality of Colonial Acts as unsatisfactory, and surely it could hardly be characterized as unsatisfactory, unless dissatisfaction was felt by somebody. Those, however, who were interested in this case did not appear to be dissatisfied. The hon. and learned Gentleman had forborne to indicate by what means these Acts should be called in question. He must be aware that a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council involved considerable expense and delay. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman propose that all Colonial Acts should be referred to the decision of the Judicial Committee whenever exception was taken to them by any person, however remotely interested? He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman hardly intended to make a proposition of that kind. Responsibility finally rested upon the Secretary of State, to whomsoever he might appeal for advice before he came to a decision. The Secretary of State might refer to his own Colleagues, or to the Privy Council, or, as was the more usual course, to the Law Officers of the Crown. The colonies would in future have no reason to complain, and hitherto no complaint had been made as to matters to which objections were entertained by the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office would always endeavour to obtain the general assent of the colonies and of the House to the course they pursued in cases of this kind.

IRISH CONVICT PRISONS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SULLIVANin rising to call attention to the circumstances under which certain changes have recently been made in the Medical Supervision of Government Convict Prisons in Ireland, whereby the previous custom of committing such supervision to visiting Physicians of especially high position and of extensive out-door general-practice has been abolished, and Medical Officers entirely resident in the Prisons, who are exclusively prison officials, have

  1563
  been appointed to the sole medical charge of Convict Prisons in Ireland, said that in bringing forward this question he disclaimed all intention of reflecting on the conduct of individuals. His observations were directed against a system which he considered unjust and injurious, and as tending to the exercise of too great severity against the prisoners; and he maintained that the medical officer of a prison should be placed in a position of independence, so that if any conflict of opinion arose between him and the governor or the other authorities, he could speak his mind boldly or fearlessly, altogether uninfluenced by the apprehension of unpleasant consequences. How was it possible that a medical officer who resided within a convict prison could be independent when he was under the control of the governor? He would refer to a case that occurred in Spike Island, Cork, where a man's eyes became bad; but the governor did not believe it, and thought he was shamming, and would not allow the medical officer to attend him. That gentleman who had been several times reprimanded for allowing himself to be imposed upon by malingerers, gave up his opinion that the man was really suffering, and the consequence was that the man got worse, and being subsequently sent to Dublin, the doctors pronounced his sight hopelessly gone; the medical gentleman being dismissed for negligence. There was an instance of the evil effects of medical men being placed under the control of the governor of the prison. It was therefore clear that it was most injurious to have a medical officer under the influence and authority of governors of prisons. He submitted that the old system afforded a much stronger guarantee that no severity in prison discipline was pursued beyond the line where independent medical testimony would arrest such a course of proceeding. If it could not be returned to, it would be better, at least, that some out-door physician should occasionally visit the prison.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, said, that as the subject had, to some extent, been already debated during that Session, he would not trouble the House with many observations, the more especially as the change the hon. Member complained of, which was the last of the kind, occurred in 1867, and
  1564
  the present Government had nothing whatever to do with it. He believed, however, that change had been made on perfectly good grounds. It was considered that, however eminent the visiting medical officers might be, if they resided outside the prison, it would be found that great loss of time would arise when visits were required. Most of them were, when first appointed, young men, to whom the appointment was an advantage; but as their practice increased, the position was not so valuable as at first, and there was a strong temptation either to neglect these appointments in favour of private practice, or to regard the prisons as hospitals for the practice of their students. He had been informed that the substitution of a resident medical officer within the prison had been found to be of the utmost benefit to the prisoners as far as regarded their health, and also as regarded discipline. There was no necessity for any external superintendence. The chaplains might easily call attention to any want of proper care in any particular case, and the medical officers were always only too glad to call in external assistance and advice when it was required. Beyond that, the Inspector of Convict Prisons had reported that any change would be injurious to the convicts, and likewise to the discipline of the prisons. Every convict prison in England had a resident medical officer, and not a single case of neglect of duty had been alleged against the medical officers of the Irish Convict Prisons. There were plenty of external checks if any misconduct occurred, and he did wish that the hon. Member for Louth would place a little more confidence in his own countrymen.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, his hon. Friend did not complain either of the ability or honesty of the medical officers. But it was in human nature that when a medical man was placed in a prison as a permanent official, he would come to look upon the cases brought under his notice, and would treat them from a prison-official point of view. That could only be counteracted by the supervision of an independent outside medical authority. As to immediate medical assistance, that could be afforded by a resident apothecary. But in cases of separate and solitary confinement, the visits of an independent outside medical man

  1565
  would be the best preventative of possible abuse.

IMPORTATION OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. S. LLOYD, in rising to call the attention of the House to the injustice suffered by seaport towns in having to defray from their local funds charges incurred under the provisions of the Public Health Act, for the protection of the entire country from the importation of infectious disease; and, to ash, whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate taking any measures to mitigate or remove this injustice? said, that these expenses were already considerable, and were likely to increase. The town of Hull, for example, since the passing of the Act had spent £2,600 in preventing the importation of infectious disease. The charges connected with the prevention of smuggling were defrayed out of the general Revenue of the country, and as these charges were perfectly analogous, they ought to be defrayed out of the same fund. A tax should be levied on the ships which landed infected persons, to relieve the localities from the cost of their medical treatment. He hoped the Government would take the matter into their early consideration.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that very little expense had been incurred under the Act at present, and in those cases where it had been at all heavy it had been borne by the Local Government Board. He would admit that a reasonable apprehension prevailed that the expenses to be incurred would in particular cases prove very serious. So far, however, as those expenses were such as the local sanitary authority ought to bear, he could not hold out any hope that the Imperial Exchequer would contribute towards their relief. There were, however, certain expenses which came properly under the head of quarantine charges, and he thought he might promise—though the relief would not be very considerable—that rules would be framed under which the localities would be relieved to that extent.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY—considered, in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

BOROUGHS (AUDITORS AND ASSESSORS).

  APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th June], "That Lord Augustus Hervey be one of the Members of the Select Committee on Boroughs (Auditors and Assessors)."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. RICHARD BRIGHT, Viscount FOLKESTONE, MR. ISAAC, Mr. CALLENDER, Mr. HARDCASTLE, Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Mr. RATHBONE, Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. MORGAN LLOYD, Mr. COTES, Mr. GOURLEY, Mr. ROWLEY HILL, Mr. DODDS, and Mr. PELL nominated other Members of the Committee:—Power given to the Committee to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—first Reading Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) * (99); Wild Birds Law Amendment* (100); Harbour of Colombo (Loan) * (101); Land Tax Commissioners
1472
Names* (102); Board of Trade Arbitrations, Inquiries, &c. * (103); Herring Fishery Barrels * (104); Bar Admission Stamp* (105); Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* (106); Four Courts Marshalsea (Dublin) * (107); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* (108).
Second Reading—Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation * (76).
Report—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (52).
Third Reading—Wenlock Elementary Education* (84), and passed.

NAVY—ADMISSION OF CADETS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNrose to ask how many cadets it is proposed to admit into Her Majesty's Navy at the next ensuing examination. The subject of the number of Officers in the Navy was a very important one. When the late Government succeeded to office they determined to take the question into their serious consideration, and during the first year of their term of office they drew up a scheme of Retirement which had already been attended with very satisfactory results. On 1st January, 1870, previous to the passing of that scheme, there were 95 flag officers in the Navy, of whom no fewer than 81 were on half-pay; there were 291 captains, of whom 202 were on half-pay; there were 401 commanders, of whom 240 were on half-pay; and 778 lieutenants, of whom 263 were on half-pay. Bad as that state of things was, matters were growing worse, and everybody agreed that something ought to be done; but, unfortunately, though everybody was of that opinion, when something was proposed, objections to that something were urged from all sides. He had stated what the proportion of officers on half-pay had been just before the new scheme was adopted. He would now state what it was in 1874. In January 1874, number of flag officers, 56—on half-pay, 41; captains, 179—on half-pay, 88; commanders, 212—on half-pay, 61; lieutenants, 663—on half-pay, 184. Those figures spoke for themselves; and whatever might be said with regard to the retirement scheme there could be no doubt that it had done much, and promised to do more, in reducing the Active List and bringing the number of officers into better proportion to the employment that could be offered to them than any other scheme that had been proposed by the Admiralty during

  1473
  the history of the Navy. He now came to the cadets. As from the nature of things promotion could not be rapid, it had been found necessary during the last few years to offer retirement to officers at almost any price in order to rid the Active List of officers for whom it was impossible to find employment. For 12 years prior to 1869 the average number of entries of cadets each year was 160, and it became necessary to offer to young sub-lieutenants and lieutenants, just coming to the time when they would be most useful, a bribe to quit the service. In 1869 the number of cadets who entered was 89; in 1870 it was 70; in 1871 it was 65; in 1872 it was 77; and in 1873 it was 40. There had been a tendency to over-estimate rather than under-estimate the requirements of the Navy in point of officers. This was the opinion of Sir John Hay, who, speaking on the 10th of June, 1873, said—
  "You cannot hope to improve the list of officers if you swamp them by numbers. With 45 entries and by retirement from the lieutenants' list of 25 or 30 Lieutenants a year you would require no other retirement from the other lists of the Navy."—[3 Mansard, ccvi., 769.]
  What we had to guard against was too large, and not too small a number of entries. By way of objection to keeping down the entries, it was said that if we did not take care we might suddenly find ourselves short of officers. He would be the last person to advocate undue reduction, but he contended that it was impossible that we could keep in time of peace an establishment that would be sufficient for a period of war. The noble Earl concluded by asking his Question.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he should not follow his noble Friend into a discussion of the retirement scheme adopted by the late Government; but he could assure his noble Friend that the Government did not propose to make any alteration in the regulations for retirements laid down by the late Board of Admiralty. What might occur in the future no man could tell, but the Admiralty had fixed on 35 as the number of cadets to be admitted this year—a number which was deemed sufficient to meet the requirements of the Service.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the efficiency of the Navy rested upon
  1474
  the young officers, and if the number of cadets were kept low it would be impossible to have a sufficient number of lieutenants—the Admiralty were able to complete an iron-clad in a very short time, but six years were required before a lieutenant would have attained the experience qualifying him for promotion. We might build ships with ease, but we could not create naval officers. The noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) might take credit for economy in cutting down the number of officers of the Navy. It was not difficult to do that; but then it might reduce the Navy to the condition in which it was at the time of the war with China, when we had not young lieutenants enough for the Service, and when we were almost obliged to call upon the mercantile marine for officers. He warned the Government that by keeping down the number of young officers they were doing immense mischief to the naval power of the country. He did not pretend to say what number should be admitted every year—that was a matter for careful calculation; but there should at least be on the list such a number of young officers as would enable us to be prepared in a time of war.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, he quite concurred with the noble Duke. If the country went to war to-morrow, we should either have to bring back the retired officers or take officers from the merchant service. No real saving could be effected by such reductions as had taken place in the Active List, because the country had not only to pay increased sums for retiring allowances, but had to pay for the increased number of officers required should a war break out.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNreminded the noble Duke and the noble Earl that he had made no reference whatever to the subject of economy. No doubt some saving of money would result from the scheme of retirement drawn up by the late Government, but it was not from the point of economy that he defended the scheme. In 1870 the employment for officers in the Navy was at a minimum and half-pay at a maximum, and it was due to the representations of the officers, who pointed out the hardship and almost professional ruin in which such a state of things involved them, that the scheme was introduced. The object of the

  1475
  scheme was to provide employment for officers, and the figures he had quoted showed that to a certain extent it had been successful; but, no doubt, up to this time no saving had accrued from its adoption.

SCIENCE AND ART—THE TRANSIT OF VENUS.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRasked Her Majesty's Government, What arrangements had been made for the observation of the Transit of Venus, as regards the number and places of the stations, and the method of observation to be adopted? and said, as the time was fast approaching when active steps must be taken to organize the expeditions which were to leave this country for those stations which had been selected for observing the important astronomical occurrence of the Transit of Venus, it was, he thought, desirable that their Lordships should know what preparations had been made by Her Majesty's Government to occupy the best stations for taking the observations, and also whether the methods would be adopted which were most suitable to the places which had been selected. It was stated some time ago that only five stations were to be occupied by this country. He believed he was right in saying that the number had since been increased; but he must add that there was a prevalent opinion that this country had declined to occupy stations of importance on the ground that the attempt would be too arduous and difficult—while the Government of the United States had undertaken in the interests of science to do what the British Government supposed to be surrounded with insurmountable difficulties. He could only hope that such was not the case, but that if stations had been abandoned it was for other reasons than that they were difficult of access, or difficult to occupy. He alluded to stations in the Southern Ocean—especially the Crozet Islands and Macdonald's Island. Then, as regarded the methods of observation, he believed it was first proposed to adopt the method of Delisle only, which was concerned with the absolute time of the beginning or ending of the transit; but there was also the method of Halley, which referred to the duration of the transit; and some stations, as their Lordships probably knew, were more suitable
1476
for the one method than the other. As it was in the interests of science that these observations should be carried on in concurrence with other Governments, he would, therefore, ask Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the Table of the House, the Correspondence showing what steps had been taken by Foreign Governments.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that parties of the Royal Engineers, the Royal Marine Artillery, and the Royal Artillery had already started for various stations, having' been previously instructed by the Astronomer Royal, whose instructions had been revised by two other astronomers, who were members of the Royal Society. The parties were five in number. One, which was not to start till October, would go to Egypt; the others would go to Kerguelen Island, New Zealand, Cape de Verd, and the Sandwich Islands. Three men-of-war would meet the parties at the Cape and take them to their destination. He could not answer his noble Friend's astronomical question as to the methods to be adopted; but he assumed that the instructions that had been given had been carefully considered. As to the Correspondence, he must leave that part of the general inquiry to be answered by his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, there was very little Correspondence on the subject—in fact, scarcely any. He found that the Government of the United States had asked that facilities should be afforded to the American expeditions for making observations in the Australian Colonies; and the Government of Germany had been placed by our Government in direct communication with the Astronomer Royal, with the view to the adoption of some common mode of procedure. If his noble Friend thought it worth while to move for the Papers, there would be no objection to their production; but he doubted that they contained any information that made their production desirable.

IRISH PEERAGE.

  ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY.
  LORD INCHIQUINrose to call attention to the position of the Scotch and Irish Peerage; and to move—

  1477
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty's consent to a Bill being introduced limiting the Prerogative of the Crown in so far as it relates to the creation of Irish Peerages, as provided by the Act of Union."
  The noble Lord said, that, considering how short a time he had had the honour of a seat in their Lordships' House, he should not be considered presumptuous in bringing the subject under their notice. He felt very strongly, and he believed there was a strong feeling entertained that these Peerages were in a most anomalous position—a position which to his mind was not only most unjust but most undesirable. That opinion was held by those Members of the House who were most interested in the question, and not only by Scotch and Irish Peers, but by a large number of persons in Scotland and Ireland; and he might go further and include a large number of persons in England. He might also refer to the voluminous correspondence in the public Press on the subject, to show the general interest taken in this question. He therefore felt himself justified as one of the Representative Peers of Ireland, in bringing the matter before their Lordships, and in endeavouring to get the injustice of which he complained removed. He did not approach this question from party motives—it was not, and could not in any way be regarded as a party question—it had been frequently brought before that House and the other House of Parliament. On the last occasion, the late Prime Minister said he considered it a matter of the utmost importance, but that it was a question which properly belonged to the Upper House to initiate and to consider. He (Lord Inchiquin) agreed with the opinion that as it was a question involving the constitution of their Lordships' House, it ought not to be initiated in the other House, and on that ground he had a fair claim to ask their Lordships to consider the Motion. In the year 1869, the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Grey) introduced a Bill on the subject. On the second reading, the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) moved an Amendment—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the state of the Representative Peerage of Scotland and Ireland and the laws relating thereto."
  That Amendment was carried, and a
  1478
  Committee was appointed, but the Committee, if it ever met, certainly never made any Report. He, however, understood from some of the Members that it was the universal opinion that so far as the creation of Irish Peerages was concerned, it was desirable that it should cease. In the debate which then took place, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack expressed his opinion that it was advisable that rather than take any legislative steps to alter the system, there should be an absorption of the Irish and Scotch Peerages into the Roll of the United Kingdom. That being the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, he was rather disappointed to find that no such scheme of absorption was then brought forward, and that he (Lord Inchiquin) was likely to have so little support in his present Motion, and was not to have the support of the noble and learned Lord. He also regretted to have to state that he had received an intimation that the Scottish Representative Peers, who had been most anxious that this question should be brought forward, did not wish it to be pressed now that they found the Government was opposed to the Motion; but he might say that generally the Peers of Scotland who had no seats in their Lordships' House entirely agreed with him. He, however, wished it to be understood that he was expressing his own opinions only on the Scottish Peerage, and did not claim to speak for those noble Lords. At the time when the noble Earl (Earl Grey) brought in his Bill in 1869, not only the noble Duke, but the noble Marquess the Secretary for India, expressed the opinion that there was not sufficient information before Parliament on the subject to justify legislation. If that was se, then he ventured to submit that it was advisable that the subject should be well ventilated, and the requisite information obtained for the public and for Parliament. He would first proceed to consider the case of Scotland. In 1707, when the Union between Scotland and this country was effected, the number of Scotch Peers, sitting in the Scotch Parliament, was 154, and that of Peers sitting in the English Parliament 166. It would have been unreasonable, and, indeed, quite impossible, to admit all those Scotch Peers to seats in the House of Lords; an arrangement was made, according to the terms of which

  1479
  Scotland was to be represented in that House by 16 Peers, who were to be chosen at the beginning of each Parliament. That number, which was supposed to have some relation to 45, the number of Scotch Members admitted at the same time to the House of Commons, was objected to by the Scotch Peers as too small, and to this moment they claimed to have it increased. Indeed, it was understood that the number would be indirectly increased by the admission of Scotch Peers into the English Peerage. Indeed, by the Scotch Act of Union, Scotch Peers became Peers of Great Britain, though without seats in the House of Lords. There was an important provision in accordance with which no further Scotch Peerages were created, and although Scotch Peerages usually descended to heirs general, the whole number of 154 which existed at the time of the Union had been by lapse of time reduced to 100. Prom this they had to deduct 45 as the number held by those who also held Peerages of the United Kingdom, 18 of which were dormant or in dispute, and 3 of which were held by ladies. Those deductions brought down the present number to 34, as compared with the 412 English Peers. When from the 34 they deducted the 16 Representative Peers, there remained 18 Scotch Peers who had no seats in that House. Considering that Scotland had been united to England for so many years, he thought it was only just and right that her representation in the House of Lords should be increased, just as, through the operation of constitutional changes, her representation in the House of Commons had been increased. Now, as to the case of Ireland. With regard to the Irish Peerage, he must remind their Lordships that the legislative union of Ireland with this country was brought about by gross corruption and bribery. He was not the advocate of a disruption of that Union—far from it; on the contrary, he thought the interests of Ireland were closely bound up with those of England, and that the closer the ties between the two countries were drawn the better for Ireland as well as for England. He alluded to that corruption and bribery to show that the Union was not of so sacred a character that it ought not to be improved where defective. In Ireland at the time of the Union there were 233
  1480
  Irish Peers; the number of English Peers was at that time 261. It was arranged by the Act of Union that the Irish Peerage should be represented in the Imperial Parliament by 32 Peers, of whom 28 were to be temporal Peers, chosen for life, and four were to be spiritual Peers, taken by rotation from the Bench of Bishops. Since the disestablishment of the Irish Church, in 1869, there had been, of course, no spiritual Peers from Ireland, and she was consequently short of the representation secured to her by the Act of Union by four seats. Had Ireland not at least a right to ask that those four vacant seats should be filled up by an equal number of temporal Peers? At the time of the Union, the Government of this country was very anxious that the power of creating Irish Peers should be continued to the Crown. The Irish House of Lords expressed itself so strongly against the proposition that at one time it was thought that the English Government would have to abandon the idea. The Cornwallis Correspondence showed how strong was the feeling of the Irish Peers on the subject, and at present he believed there was no difference of opinion among them on the point. They thought it was undesirable that the power of creating Irish Peerages should be continued. In one respect the Irish Peers were better off than the Scotch Peers; for those Peers of Ireland who were not Representative Peers, though they were unable to sit as Representatives in the House of Commons for any place in Ireland, were able to do so for any place in Scotland or Ireland who might elect them; whereas the Scotch Peers were disabled from sitting for any place either in Scotland, England, or Ireland. He thought that disability of the Irish Peers ought to be removed if the Irish Peerages were continued. From the 185 Irish Peers you had to deduct 80 who were Peers of the United Kingdom, and from the remaining 105, if you deducted the representative Peers, you had 77, who, with the 18 Scotch Peers, were without seats. This gave a total of 91 Peers who were unable to take any part in legislation—who were, in fact, disfranchised. In an article on the subject, published last year, the leading journal described the Irish Peers as neither fish, flesh, nor fowl. Now, was it desirable that this

  1481
  state of things should be continued? He thought not. There were several ways in which a remedy might be found. They might admit the whole of those 95 Peers to their Lordships' House; they might incorporate the Peerages of Scotland and Ireland with that of the United Kingdom; or they might increase the number of Representative Peers. This was no party question, and it did appear to him that the number of Peers was not so great that a considerable addition might not be made without any injury to the House; nor would it be impossible, if necessary, to add a few benches to those which already existed; the numbers of that House would still fall very far short of those in the other House of Parliament. But it might be said the addition he recommended would disturb the balance of parties in the House. No doubt, the opinions of a large proportion of the Peers of Scotland and Ireland were in unison with that (the Ministerial) side of the House; but, perhaps, the best chance of increasing the Liberal feeling was to admit them to seats in that House. With reference to the plan for absorption, some such plan as this might be adopted—ten Peers of Scotland and an equal number of the Peers of Ireland might be admitted to seats; five Scotch and five Irish Peers might be admitted to permanent seats every Parliament; and the election of Representative Peers should rest entirely with those who had not seats in that House. There was also another mitigation of the difficulty—that the Peers of Scotland and Ireland, during the process of absorption, should have the power of sitting in the other House of Parliament for any constituency in any of the Three Kingdoms which might elect them. A letter, signed "Jurist," which appeared in The Times not long ago, deserved attention on that subject. Put he was told by the noble Duke the President of the Council that his plan would be an interference with the Prerogative of the Crown. Now, he thought the present power of creating Irish Peers tended to lower the prestige of the order, and he could not conceive how it would be either for the interest of Her Majesty or her Successors to lower the position not only of the Peerage of Ireland, but of the Peerage generally. He was not an advocate for Home Rule, and was totally opposed to any separa-
  1482
  tion of Ireland from England in any way; he thought the connection between the two countries should be drawn as close as possible; but if Parliament refused to listen to a complaint which, after all, must be admitted to be a fair one—if the Government perpetually declined to take the matter into consideration, they would give the Home Rulers an argument in support of their doctrine which they would not otherwise have. On these grounds, he trusted the Government would find a way of dealing with the subject.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty's consent to a Bill being introduced limiting the prerogative of the Crown in so far as it relates to the creation of Irish Peerages, as provided by the Act of Union.—(The Lord Inchiquin.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could not agree with the noble Lord who had brought forward the Motion, that the acceptance or rejection of it had anything whatever to do with the question of Home Rule; and he must say that he regretted that the noble Lord should have imported the Home Rule question into a matter which seemed to his mind to have no connection with it. The noble Lord had in the course of his address made two allusions which he probably would not have made if he had had a seat in the House longer:—the noble Lord was probably not aware that he was somewhat out of Order in alluding in the pointed way that he had done to an article which had appeared in The Times newspaper. He (the Duke of Richmond) did not admit that any opinion could be formed or argument founded on articles published anonymously in a public journal. He must also protest against private conversations which had passed between his noble Friend and himself being imported into a speech made in that House—he thought considerable inconvenience would arise if that became a practice. He spoke to the noble Lord on the subject in private with great frankness, and did not know that he had a word to retract from what he had said; but he thought that communications of that kind should be considered privileged:—were it not so, noble Lords on both sides would be much more careful how they exchanged opinions on such subjects. He presumed that it was not necessary for him to go at any length into the various matters

  1483
  which had been touched upon by his noble Friend. He had no cause to find fault with the advocacy of his noble Friend; but he thought that upon further consideration he would find that the subject was surrounded by a great many difficulties, and that to deal with it in a manner which would give general satisfaction was not an easy matter. Taking everything into consideration, he could not see his way to sanctioning such a Motion as that before the House. The noble Lord must not forget that he was virtually asking Her Majesty to put a material limitation upon Her Prerogative, and to disturb a distinct arrangement come to at the Union of the two countries. As he understood, his noble Friend drew a comparison between the arrangement with regard to their respective Peerages made by the Act of Union, unfavourable with regard to Ireland. His noble Friend must not forgot that these arrangements were part and parcel of the condition upon which those Unions were effected, that they were sanctioned and carried out by those who were then in power, and that the differences and anomalies complained of were in accordance with the Articles of the Union between the three countries. His noble Friend should also remember that at the time of the Union with Ireland, the Union with Scotland was an existing arrangement, and that if it had appeared to the Irish Parliament that the latter was a desirable one, it was open to them to follow it. But they took a different course. He did not mean to say that those arrangements had proved as satisfactory as they might be—the great difficulty was how to deal with the matter, and remove what was complained of in a manner that would prove generally satisfactory. His noble Friend had made one statement to which he felt bound to make a protest. That statement was that the Committee on Irish Peerages in 1869 were almost unanimously of opinion that after a certain time the creation of Irish Peerages should cease. He should like to know where the noble Lord got that information. He happened to have been a Member of that Committee, and it was the first time that he had heard of such a thing. As he understood the noble Lord, his object was to pray Her Majesty to consent to the introduction of a Bill to limit the Prerogative of
  1484
  the Crown so far as it related to Irish Peerages—that was, to limit after the lapse of time the constituent body who elected the Irish Representative Peers to this House, and to improve and extend the system whereby Irish Peers would be enabled to sit in this House. He ventured to think that the number of Peers in the House was already very large. Since 1830 as many as 200 had been added to it, and he did not think it would be advisable to adopt a course which would have a tendency to extend the number. On the whole, he could not see that his noble Friend had made out any case on the strength of which the Crown should be asked to waive its present Prerogative, and he could not therefore support his proposition. But if the Motion were to be agreed to, and if a Bill was to be introduced to limit the Prerogative of the Crown in the manner proposed, and if an absorption of Peers was to follow, the change ought to be proposed on the responsibility of the Government of the day and not on that of a private individual.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, he was glad that the subject had been introduced, for he thought that there were few subjects that more needed the attention of Parliament, and he was also glad to hear what had been said by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) because he was of opinion that it was a subject which could only be dealt with by the Government of the day. He did not agree with many of the suggestions that had been made with regard to absorption and other details, but these were matters which might be settled in a Select Committee; but he concurred in the general principle underlying the Motion, which was that the Peerages of Scotland and Ireland should be put on a par with those of England, and that the Representative Peerage should be done away with. The anomaly of Peers not being Members of this House had been spoken of; but there was another anomaly which had not yet been pointed out—that of having elected Peers in a House, the distinctive feature of which was supposed to be its hereditary character. At present the Scotch and Irish representation was elective, and that of England only elective. He thought steps ought to be taken to get rid of the representative element in this House. There could not be any objection to the

  1485
  18 or 20 Peers of Scotland being absorbed; but 77 additional Irish Peers would be too many for the House to absorb, and things must, therefore, be left as they were until the Irish Peerage should have been gradually reduced, in the absence of new creations, to a number which could be readily absorbed. The Irish House of Peers, at the time of the Union, reluctantly consented to the Crown having the power to create new Peerages; and, as Judge Christian had said, the existence of a separate Irish Peerage fostered the idea of separation from England. Prom the Cornwallis Correspondence it appeared that the Irish Peerage was defended as affording another step in the class of honours which might sometimes obviate the necessity of creating English Peerages. That looked a pretty theory; but the compromise which was agreed to vitiated it, because there was a Peerage limited to 100 between a Baronetage and Peerage of the United Kingdom both of which were unlimited. Perhaps his noble Friend's object would be sufficiently attained by having called attention to the subject, but he trusted that at no distant date the matter would be taken up by Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, he thought the time had come for Parliamentary action on this subject. He thought it absurd to keep up an order of Peers which was quite anomalous, which had no raison d'être, which was obnoxious to the Irish Peers themselves, and which was of no utility whatever. It seemed to him a most anomalous provision of the Act, that a new Peer of Ireland must be created for every third vacancy—at present and prospectively for every vacancy when the number of Irish Peers was reduced to 100—indeed he was not sure that Her Majesty would not be obliged to create a man a Peer against his will. It might come to pass, as happened with William the Fourth's Knight's of the Guelphic Order, that the new Irish Peers would become objects of pity, or worse still be told that it only "served them right." It must be on some such principle that Irish Peers were created. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had spoken of the Union of Ireland as a contract; but it was no contract; it was a condition forced on the weaker party. If the Irish Peers could have
  1486
  exercised an option they would have refused. But even if there had been a contract, that argument might be good as long as the contract was observed; but it had been broken over and over again. It was broken when a great many Irish boroughs were disfranchised—it was broken when the Irish Church was disestablished—it was broken when the four Irish Spiritual Peers were excluded from the House. Therefore, the matter could not be put on the ground of contract. Could it be put on the ground that this particular body fulfilled any useful or practical purpose? Not at all. It might be said that it was a dignity for which particular persons might be anxious. He did not know enough of the genus homo to know that there was anyone too good to be a Commoner, and too bad to be a Peer of the Realm, but for whom the Irish Peerage was exactly fit. He hoped there was some better reason for maintaining a condition of things which was exceedingly obnoxious.
  EARL GREYsaid, that whatever other change might be made in the Irish Peerage, at all events no addition ought to be made to the number. He agreed that a satisfactory amalgamation of the Peerages of the Three Kingdoms was very desirable, if it were practicable; but it was not possible. If so, then it was desirable, as far as possible, to approach a better state of things, and to that end the first thing was to suspend the creation of Irish Peers. That the Crown should create one Peer whenever three Peerages became extinct was entirely owing to the desire of the Government of the day not to give up a useful means of influence, and the noble Lord who had just spoken was right when he said that it was entirely contrary to the wish of the Irish Peers. If, then, it was desirable to avoid increasing the number of Irish Peers not having seats in this House, was there any ground for objecting to the present Motion, which was intended to prevent it? It seemed to him a proper and constitutional mode of proceeding. The noble Lord had not asked their Lordships to interfere with the Prerogative of the Crown, but that an Address should be presented to Her Majesty praying that She would consent to the introduction of a Bill by which Parliament should be authorized to make a deduction from that Prerogative.

  1487
  Having listened very attentively to the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), he must forgive him for saying that it only showed the extreme difficulty his noble Friend had been in to find any ground for asking the House to reject this Motion. His noble Friend must have been very hard pressed for an argument when he had recourse to that utterly exhausted one of a breach of the Act of Union—an argument which, in the case both of Ireland and Scotland, had been answered over and over again; so that he did not think there was a Member of their Lordships' House who would now attach any weight to it. It was said there was a difference between this and 1869, because so many Peers had been added to the House. But that rendered the course recommended by the noble Lord (Lord Inchiquin) more desirable than ever, as this increase made it still more objectionable that new Irish Peerages should be created hereafter.
  EARL GRANVILLEregretted that the noble Duke (the Lord President) should have thought it his duty to make so curt and unsatisfactory a reply to the noble Lord who had introduced the subject; and he thought he had been too severe upon him upon one or two points. He believed it was against the Order of the House to read newspapers in the House; but he was not aware of any Rule against quoting a newspaper—and he was the more likely to be correct on that point, because he remembered that for four or five years the Lord President made a practice of quoting on the first day of the Session a great many disagreeable passages from newspapers against the late Government. No doubt the noble Duke was right in saying that this was a matter which should be dealt with not by a private Member, but by the Government of the day, and if his noble Friend had followed up that remark by saying that Her Majesty's Government were about to take the matter in hand, he felt confident his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Rosebery) who had also a Motion on the Paper on the subject would be only too glad to leave the question in the hands of the Government. It was most natural for a Member of the Irish Peerage to introduce this subject; for when it was brought forward by the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) some
  1488
  years ago, one of the great arguments adduced against the proposal was—"What is the use of stirring up this matter, as no complaints have been made by the Irish and Scotch Peers!" That complaint could not any longer be put forward as a reason why the subject should not be taken into consideration. At all events, he thought it would be convenient if before the question was put, the noble Duke would give some intimation to the House as to the manner in which the Government proposed to deal with the Motion of his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Rosebery).
  LORD REDESDALEhoped that after the discussion that had taken place the noble Lord (Lord Inchiquin) would consent to withdraw his Motion. There was not a Peer in the House who did not concur in the conclusions at which the noble Lord had arrived, but any action in the matter ought to be taken by the Crown and not by the House. After the expression of opinion which had been made on the present occasion, and which was so favourable to the object the noble Lord had in view, he hoped he would not press his Motion to a division. It was a remarkable fact that the first Irish Peer created after the Union was Lord Rendlesham, whose representative now sat in the other House, and neither he nor his family owned an acre of land in Ireland, nor did his predecessor who took his title from his place in Suffolk.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would not enter into a discussion with the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) about the point of Order. With regard to the next Motion on the Paper, the Government did not see that much was to be gained by the inquiry which the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) asked for; although if the House should be of opinion that the subject should be investigated he did not intend to oppose the appointment of a Select Committee.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, as that was so, he would join in the appeal made by the noble Lord at the Table (Lord Redesdale) and urge the noble Lord opposite to withdraw his Motion.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he would act upon the advice of his noble Friend and withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS OF SCOTLAND.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that it might hardly seem necessary, after the announcement that had been just made by the noble Duke, to make any remarks on the Motion which he had now to propose to the House. No extended remarks from him would indeed have been necessary if the noble Duke had not accompanied his acceptance of the Motion by an insinuation that no good would be served by it. His proposition was that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present method of electing Representative Peers for Scotland and Ireland, and to report what changes might be desirable therein. He should have been glad to have embodied this with the proposition which had been just made by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Inchiquin), only that he had failed to discover how the noble Lord's Motion would meet the case of Scotland in any satisfactory manner. He therefore felt bound to bring forward his Motion; and he also felt bound, notwithstanding the intimation of the noble Duke, to make a few observations thereon, for the purpose of showing their Lordships that a genuine and practical grievance existed. To begin with, there was great confusion in connection with the election of Scottish Peers. There was no possible means whereby an objectionable vote could be rejected; and it was possible for two or three Peers to vote under the same title without any means of ascertaining the person really entitled to vote. No doubt the subject had not been altogether overlooked since the passing of the Act of Union to which so much reference had been made. A Committee sat on the subject in 1847, and examined two witnesses. To one of these witnesses these questions were put:—
  "Suppose that there was one Peer of the 16 that had 20 votes and another had 21, of which 21 a claimant under a dormant peerage, voting under protest, was one, should you in that case be obliged to return the person that had the 21 votes?—I think so.
  "Should you make any representation in the Returns of the election being carried by a protested vote?—Not on the Return, but in the Minutes.
  "Does the Minute accompany the Return?—No.
  "Then the Return on the face of it, would merely bear that A, B, was elected, although his
  1490
  election has been carried by votes under protest?—Yes."
  Surely such a system as this, by which a Peer might come to that House without having received a sufficient number of valid votes, called for Parliamentary interference. But this was only one instance of many that could be adduced of the unsatisfactory working of the present system. If, for instance, a Scottish nobleman was suffering from a twitch of conscience through a feeling that he had been improperly elected, there were no means open to him by which he could resign his seat in the House; so that in effect it was impossible for the House to get rid of a Peer who had been wrongly elected, or for such a Peer to get rid of himself. This was not, certainly, a state of affairs which should be perpetuated. The only remedy was for the Government to recommend that such a person should be made a Peer of the United Kingdom. Surely it was an unsatisfactory way of getting rid of a Scotch Representative Peer who had been unduly elected by making him a Peer of Great Britain even if the Government were prepared to do so. Then as regarded the system of election, a very great hardship was inflicted upon the Scotch Peerage by the manner in which the votes were taken; because an absolute majority of one would return the whole 16 Representative Peers. Again, there was another great hardship suffered by the Scotch Peers even as compared with their brethren of the Irish Peerage. The latter might represent Scotch or English constituencies in the Imperial Parliament—a similar privilege was denied to the former; and this he considered a real grievance upon the Scotch Peerage; and not only that—it might give, indeed had given, rise to an anomaly injurious to the public interest—for it might be that the heir to a Scotch Peerage might have a seat in the House of Commons where he was displaying ability creditable to himself and useful to his country, when he might suddenly succeed to the Peerage. When this happened he vacated his seat in the House of Commons, and unless he chanced at some future time to be elected a Representative Peer, his services were lost to himself and the country. He would refer to the celebrated case of Lord Marchmont by way of illustration. Lord Marchmont was a leading Member of the

  1491
  House of Commons and a formidable I opponent to Sir Robert Walpole. The father of Lord Marchmont dying, he succeeded to a Scottish Peerage, and was in consequence shut out from both Houses of Parliament and entirely banished from political life. It was said that Sir Robert Walpole congratulated himself on that occasion on the existence of a state of affairs which had so effectively banished his opponent from public life. An Irish Peer could in such a case have come to England and got returned to the House of Commons; but Scottish Peers could not. The case of the Scottish Peer was therefore very unfortunate and unsatisfactory. Besides this unfairness, there were many anomalies in the system which should, he thought, have been done away with long ago. Another hardship was that while the Irish Representative Peers were elected for life, the Scotch Representative Peers were only elected for the particular Parliament. As for the Union, the fact was that even at the time that Act was being passed much dissatisfaction was expressed regarding its provisions, and never since had that dissatisfaction been removed. Many suggestions had been made as to the manner me which these causes of dissatifaction should be dealt with, but none seemed to be of a character calculated to give general satisfaction or work well. The question of Scottish Peerages seemed to be attended with fatalities. From the Commission of Inquiry to which he alluded much did not result. In 1847 another Commission was appointed. They sat only 24 hours; only two witnesses were called, and 80 questions were put. Both these Commissions, however, placed on record the fact that legislation on the subject was necessary, and Lord Eglinton brought in a Bill on the subject. In 1869 the noble Earl below him (Earl Grey) brought the question forward. On the latter occasion the noble Duke opposite and those noble Lords who were now joined with him in the carrying on of the Government, complained that the House had not been sufficiently informed on the subject. After that the matter was allowed to fall into a state of obscurity. After this he was rather surprised at hearing the noble Duke state something to the effect that there was nothing that need be inquired into. Having shown their Lordships that there were hard-
  1492
  ships and injustices in connection with the election of Scottish Peers, and that there did not exist sufficient information on the subject, and this appearing to be the feeling of the House, he did not think it necessary to say anything further on the subject.
  Moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present method of electing the Representative Peers for Scotland and Ireland, and to report whether any changes are desirable therein.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsuggested an addition to the Instructions to the Committee to the effect that the Committee should also inquire into the law relating to the Representative Peers for Scotland and Ireland.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDobjected to the proposed Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved that the Amendment went beyond the object of the Motion, and involved the opening up of the subject of the constitution of the Peerage.
  LORD SELBORNEmentioned that the Amendment moved by the noble Duke in 1869, was in these terms—
  "That a Select Committee he appointed to consider the state of the Representative Peerage of Scotland and Ireland and the laws relating thereto."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that was a proposal for an inquiry with reference, not to the state of the Peerage, but to the state of the Representative Peerage.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDobjected to the course taken by the noble Earl opposite in pressing his Motion in an altered form after having indicated that he was satisfied with the intimation made on behalf of the Government. He was not prepared to accept the altered Motion at that moment, but would undertake to consider the matter.
  After some conversation, the further debate adjourned to Friday next.

ARMY—THE BOXER-SHRAPNEL SHELL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDcalled attention to a Return dated the 25th of July, 1873, Correspondence between the authorities at the War Office and Mr. W. Hope, V.O., relative to the Shell adopted in the Service, and officially

  1493
  known as the "Boxer-Shrapnel," which Mr. Hope claimed as his invention. Mr. Hope was a Civil Engineer, who had formerly served with distinction in the Army, and had won the Victoria Cross. Having invented a projectile, he gave up the specifications to the authorities at Woolwich, without thinking it necessary to take out a patent; and, taking no further step in the matter, he continued the work of his profession. In the course of time he learnt that a new shell had been introduced in the service under the name of the' "Boxer-Shrapnel," and on inquiry he found that shell was identical with his own. Since January, 1870, he had urged that he should be recognized as the inventor of the projectile; or that, if there was any doubt in the matter, the question should be referred to some impartial arbitrator. The course taken by the War Office was simply to refer the claim to General Boxer; who, of course, denied the statement of Mr. Hope, and a brief note to the latter informed him of this fact. He (the Earl of Longford) wished to give no opinion on the merits of the invention; but the case appeared to him to be one which required more consideration than it had received, and he believed it would be for the credit of the War Office if the decision of the claim were referred to some impartial tribunal. He trusted the noble Lord who represented the Department in that House would be able to give him a satisfactory assurance on the subject. He would, therefore, ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to refer the decision of this claim to the judgment of some impartial authority?
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, Mr. Hope was a relative of his, and well known to him as a most meritorious officer. Having completed his invention, he deposited it at Woolwich, and afterwards became connected with the diplomatic service. On his return to this country, he at once, on examining the Boxer shell, discovered its similarity to that which he had left behind; and he learnt from a non-commissioned officer at Woolwich that his invention had been removed from its original place and taken to pieces by General Boxer. Now, anyone who looked into the Papers on the subject, would see with how much perseverance a public Department could avoid doing a natural and gracious
  1494
  thing. His relative had asked for nothing more than that his invention should be submitted to any impartial tribunal, who should decide between him and General Boxer. It could not, he thought, be denied that he had an equitable claim to have that request granted, and he hoped the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War would say that he was prepared to accede to it.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid, it was not the intention of the War Office to appoint any tribunal to inquire into the subject. In making that statement, he did not wish to express any opinion on the part either of the present or the late Governments as to the merits of Mr. Hope's invention, and he regretted that the War Department felt it to be their duty to take any course which was disapproved by the noble Lord who had just spoken. The fact was, that the dispute was not one between Mr. Hope and the War Office, but between two private persons. A departmental inquiry had already, he might add, been instituted into the matter, and General Boxer entirely denied that he had in any way been asked by Mr. Hope's invention. Under these circumstances, he did not see how the War Office could re-open the inquiry.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKwas sorry to learn the decision at which the War Office had arrived, and pointed out that Mr. Hope had been advised on high legal authority that he would have no locus standi in a civil tribunal.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the Boxer shell was introduced into the service in 1867; and that a few-years after Mr. Hope had written to the War Office, claiming the invention as his own, and stated that it had been pirated by General Boxer. A departmental inquiry was thereupon instituted, and General Lefroy, who was Master General of the Ordnance, sent in a Report which was in favour of General Boxer and adverse to the claims of Mr. Hope. Mr. Hope was naturally dissatisfied with that decision; but it was obvious that the War Office could not carry the inquiry further. Mr. Hope wanted arbitration, but the War Office declined, on the ground that General Boxer having acquired rights under the law of the land, if any further remedy were sought it must be a legal one.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKasked whether the Report of General Lefroy was included in the Correspondence?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the inquiry being a departmental one, it was not usual to publish the Report.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD'S PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 5) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the districts of Bognor, Brentford, Hitchin, Leicester, Mansfield, Oxford, the Ware Union, and Wroxham—Was presented by The Lord WAL-SLNGHAM; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 99.)
  WILD BIRDS LAW AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the more effectual protection of Wild Birds during the breeding season—Was presented by The Earl DE LA WARB; read 1a. (No. 100.)

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm Provisional Orders made by the Education Department under "The Elementary Education Act, 1870," to enable the School Boards for the Borough of Brighton, the parish of Aberdare, and the united school district of Caerhun, Llanbedr-y-Cennin, and Dolgarrog to put in force "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," and the acts amending the same—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 108.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.