to the appointment of the Committee. He then immediately asked the hon. Member whether, after what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would consent to do so? The hon. Member did not pay him even the ordinary courtesy of replying to his Question, although in the House. After that, he did not feel justified in again mentioning the matter to him. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he had originally told him of his intention to object to the Committee, on the ground of the Standing Orders, unless he limited his Committee to 15; but after the Committee had been appointed, the hon. Gentleman stated to him that he had changed his mind and that un

that it was even threatened to send a deputation to Nottingham, and thus induce the working men there to unseat him. He was bound to say that he still objected to the number of the Committee being more than 15, and he thought that, in justice to himself and his case, the number should be reduced. He made those observations in order that hon. Members might know the reasons for his opposition, and in order that he might not be accused of obstruction. In the future, it was his intention during the rest of the Session to oppose the nomination of any Select Committee where the names exceeded 15 in number. He trusted that the explanation he had given would be satisfactory to the House. He might say that he should not oppose any fur-less he limited his Committee to 13, he ther delay in the nomination of the Committee; but he hoped that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would meet his objection by reducing the number to 15.

should object to it. On further conver-
sation with him, he (Mr. Ritchie) told
the hon. Member that the Standing
Orders permitted 15 Members to be
nominated, and he (Mr. Ritchie) pro-
ceeded to obtain the names of hon.
Members in the usual way.
It was
useless for the hon. Member to come
forward now to say that he objected to
17 names; for what he really objected
to at first was that 15 Members should
be on the Committee, the other two were
added after the hon. Member had put his
Notice of objection on the Paper. In re-
spect to the opposition of the hon. Member
for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), it was based
upon a sound and intelligible principle

MR. RITCHIE said, he must place before the House his version of what had taken place, as it differed materially from that described by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac). No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam) and his hon. Colleague (Sir William Hart Dyke) were very much obliged to the hon. Member for the interest he took in the nomination of Select Committees. He should not question the right of any hon. Member to oppose the names pro-namely, that the Committee ought to posed to be nominated on a Committee. be strengthened by the addition of the But the effect of the opposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courthon. Gentleman had been to prevent ney). He quite agreed that the hon. this matter from coming on at all even Member for Liskeard ought to be on the for discussion. He ventured to think Committee, and he was sure that that that opposition of that sort was unjusti- hon. Member would acknowledge that fiable, for the House, having resolved he was one of the first he had applied upon the Committee, there remained the to, but he was then unwilling to serve. further step to nominate the Members It was his great anxiety that the Comto serve on the Committee, and the effect mittee should be a strong Commitof the opposition of the hon. Gentleman tee, and when he complied with the was to prevent the House from carrying request of the hon. Member for Swanout its own Resolution. The hon. Gen- sea, his opposition was immediately tleman said that he had never asked him withdrawn. He hoped that he had now as to his views upon the matter, and satisfied the House that the course he that no Question on the subject had had taken was a usual one; but he venever been put to him. The House would, tured to think that the course taken by no doubt recollect that when he asked a the hon. Member for Nottingham had Question of his right hon. Friend the been altogether unusual and unpreceChancellor of the Exchequer on the sub- dented upon a question of the nominaject, the right hon. Gentleman expressed tion of a Select Committee. If the hon. a hope that the hon. Member for Not- Member had objected in the first tingham would withdraw his opposition | instance to the Committee being com

Mr. Isaac

posed of more than 15 Members, he should have paid every attention to his representations; but as he had now obtained the names of hon. Members and placed them on the Committee, he did not see how he could ask any hon. Gentleman to have his name taken off. He, therefore, hoped that the House would support him in nominating 17 Members to serve upon the Committee.

MR. DILLWYN observed, that he placed a Notice upon the Paper with reference to the number of this Committee, though he could not agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac) that the Committee should be limited to 15. He was opposed to the Committee in toto-he did not like it, and did not think it would lead to good results; but when he saw the names of the hon. Members whom it was proposed to nominate to serve on the Committee, he considered that there was an undue preponderance of Gentlemen likely to be biased-not improperly-but still biased on the subject, and, therefore, he objected to the nomination of the Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) very frankly and fairly met his views, and named two other Members-the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon). He did not altogether like the Committee being raised from 15 to 17; but still, as his hon. Friend had met his views so fairly, he did not think he could do otherwise than withdraw his opposition, and he, therefore, felt bound now to support the nomination of the Committee as he proposed it. He did not like the Commit. tee at all; still, as his hon. Friend had done his best to meet his views, he should accept what he proposed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Members:

THE O'CONOR DON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: Sir, I do not intend to criticize the Amendments that have been put down by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), the hon. Member for the City of Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), and the two other Amendments which amount to a direct negative of this Bill; but I would most earnestly appeal to the hon. Gentlemen who are about to take part in the disCussion on this measure that they will confine themselves as much as possible to the real principle involved in the Bill which I now ask the House to read a second time. I make this appeal, especially because I am afraid that some of the Amendments are of a character that might lead us into discussions which I should regard as very wide of the real objects and intentions of the measure. House adjourned at One o'clock. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has given Notice of an Amendment which,

Select Committee to consist of Seventeen Mr. BOURKE, Mr. ALEXANDER BROWN, Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Mr. BELL, Mr. THORNHILL, Mr. STEWART, Mr. JAMES CORRY, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. BALFOUR, Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. ORR EWING, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. ONSLOW, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. RITCHIE :Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

66

with all respect to him, I would venture | sity we now propose to establish in to say is one that would be more appro- Ireland? Are not the benefits conpriately made to a Vote in Committee of ferred by those Universities far more Supply on the question of primary edu- for the members of one Church and cation. Considering the nature of the profession, one particular creed, than Amendment, I have thought it desirable will be the case if this Bill be passed to make the appeal that, in discussing the into law? ["No, no!"] An hon. second reading of the Bill, we should, Gentleman behind me says 'No, no." as far as possible, confine ourselves to I would ask him, is there not a Chair the real subject-matter of the measure. of Theology in each of the Scotch The real questions at issue are - Is Universities, are not the Governing there a want in Ireland of further Bodies of those Universities largely comfacilities for higher education? If that posed of Presbyterian clergymen, and question be answered in the affirma- are they not mainly attended by Presbytive is the mode proposed by this terian students? If my hon. Friend the Bill for meeting that want one that Member for the City of Edinburgh, or ought to commend itself to the approval any other Scotch Member, could point out of the House? If these two questions a so-called non-sectarian University in be answered in the affirmative, I do not Scotland, the chief Professors in which think the House of Commons' will be in- were Roman Catholic priests, in which clined to refuse the necessary amount of University there was a school of Roman money for the carrying out of the objects Catholic theology, and could show that of the Bill, and I may say at once that such University was attended largely by it is no essential part of our proposal Presbyterian and Protestant students, that the money shall come from the fund then he might come to this House, mentioned in the Bill. We have selected and say to the Irish Roman Cathothat particular fund, because it was lics "You have no right to comthat which was selected by the Govern- plain, because you have a Protestant ment in relation to the measure of last University in Dublin, in which there is year; but if Parliament should think it a Chair of Protestant Theology, and a advisable to have recourse to any other College in Belfast to which you can fund in order to meet the require- send Irish Roman Catholics." I deny ments of the measure, there is not the that there is anything contrary to the slightest objection to such a proposal principles of civil and religious liberty being accepted, and the question whether in what we are asking to-day, and assert primary education in Ireland is suffi- that those who refuse to aid us are actciently met, and whether the money ing contrary to those principles which wanted for the purposes of this Bill they so loudly profess on so many difshould be provided out of the fund ferent occasions. I have only one word which is referred to in the measure, or more to say, and that is on a topic in any other way, are issues entirely which no doubt will be often raised, and outside the present question, and ought that is the objection taken in some not to be discussed on the second read- quarters that we are asking for the ing of this Bill. As to the second second reading of this Bill so soon after Amendment on the Paper, which is to the introduction of the measure. This, be moved by my hon. Friend the Mem- no doubt, is thought unreasonable, and ber for the City of Edinburgh, I would I have seen statements in the papers to say a few words. The hon. Gentleman the effect that we are desirous of rushis much opposed to this Bill, and he ing this Bill through the House. At says in his Amendment that the measure the very outset, I wish most distinctly is opposed to the principle of civil and to disclaim any wish to take such a religious equality, by proposing to en- course. We have no desire whatever dow mainly the members of one Church either to rush the Bill through the House, and their Colleges with £1,500,000 of or in any way to shirk the discussion of its public money. Well, but I would ask principles; and I would venture to add the hon. Gentleman what is the present that, in proposing the second reading of state of affairs in Scotland? Are there the measure to-day, we are doing nothing not in that country four Universities that is at all unreasonable. I stated the fairly endowed, and are they not far other night, in introducing the Bill, that more denominational than the Univer- I did so in the sincere desire that it might

The O'Conor Don

could say was that two blacks did not | in this House who would not be sorrymake a white, and there was no reason God forbid that he should say that they why the fault should be re-introduced would bid for the support of the priests! in Ireland also. It would, he ad--but who would not be sorry to have mitted, be very desirable if the theo- their support in the Irish elections. logical departments could be separated Putting this and that together, he was from these Universities; but there suspicious of this Bill. He suspected was no reason why their Irish Friends the presence of the cloven foot, which his should copy what was bad and reject hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh what was good in the Scotch system. saw more distinctly. Therefore, he said, He looked with very great suspicion let them not press this Bill forward with upon the circumstances under which this indecent haste, but discuss it thoroughly, Bill had been brought into being. It so that they might know what were the was a very suspicious fact that when bearings and intentions of the Bill, and they were suddenly told that the hon. what were the opinions of the public Member for Roscommon wished to intro- with regard to it. The more he looked duce a Bill on Irish University Educa- at the Bill the less he liked it. Public tion, Her Majesty's Government, in a attention was gradually being directed singular and unexpected manner, imme- to the Bill, and the organs of public diately made way for it. Her Majesty's opinion were pointing out, he thought Government were not in the habit of very justly, various points in which the giving such extreme facilities to private Bill was open to the animadversions of Members who had been disappointed in the hon. Member for Edinburgh. He bringing on their Bills, and it seemed not only disliked what was in the Bill, to him that the action of the Govern- but he also disliked a great deal that ment had shown a singular benevo- was not in the Bill. He disliked the lence towards, if not connivance with, reticence that was shown as to making the hon. Member for Roscommon its objects and intentions more clear with regard to the first stage of his and distinct; he disliked the proposal for Bill. He trusted that the support of leaving the rules and procedure for the Government was not to be extended carrying out its provisions to a Senate to the subsequent stages. Another sin- which was to be so largely composed of gular fact was the way in which the elected members. He disliked also the other Bills down on the Order Book for exclusion from the University of the second reading to-day had been cleared members of all Colleges otherwise proout of the way in an almost unprece- vided for; and he could not help thinking dented manner in order to give the hon. that the new University was intended to Member for Roscommon the first place. be mainly a Catholic University, and Irish Members had singular good for- that its graduates, who would exercise tune in obtaining the first place for their the voting power, would mainly be Bills upon Wednesday, and the unani- Catholic graduates. If that were so, mity with which they had all given way whatever might be the intentions of the on this occasion to the measure of the hon. Member for Roscommon, the end hon. Member for Roscommon was re- would be that the elected members of markable. Such action on their part the Senate would be Catholic members, seemed to indicate a unanimity of which and the rules and procedure left to them he confessed he was a little suspi- would be rules and procedure drawn up, cious. The House was not accustomed he would not say in the interests of to see such perfect unanimity among Catholics, but, at least, in deference to them. There was usually a good deal the prejudices and honest opinions of of division amongst them, except on these Catholic members. The Bill subjects that gave them a hope of touch- ought, therefore, to be very cautiously ing public money. This Bill was one of looked at before they proceeded too far. those subjects. The Government having In reference to this subject, he had exhibited so much benevolence towards during the last two or three days looked this Bill, in regard to which the Irish at the communications and articles in Members were so singularly unanimous, the public Press, and he had been he could not help thinking that at best struck by one which appeared this or at worst a General Election was not morning in the shape of a letter in The far off, and that there might be parties Times from a Protestant Nobleman, Lord Sir George Campbell