what were called the "gagging clauses," Mr. Fortescue said the restrictions were thought to be required by the circumstances of Ireland, and pointed out that they would only apply to those who would not avail themselves of the advantages of Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges. Speaking to the Roman Catholics, he asked them to note how decidedly and impartially public opinion had pronounced against all endowments for all creeds; and with regard to the undenominational character of the University, he asked whether the Roman Catholics meant that henceforth no young man of their communion was to receive any education from a Protestant? The Bill, he believed, afforded them an opportunity which, if vigorously used, would give them all they required. It was an opportunity which might never recur, and if they refused it a great injury would be done to the cause of education.

Dr. Lyon Playfair showed by careful statistics that the quantity of academic teaching in Ireland was great, and he was by no means prepossessed in favour of a measure that proposed to disturb it. Pleading zealously for mixed education, on the value of which he expatiated with much force and eloquence, he concluded by entreating the House to hold fast by the system which would be appreciated by the people in the end, however the priests might frown.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the outset, replied to some of the points made by Dr. Playfair, and, remarking with regard to the "gagging clauses" that they were not of the essence of the Bill (which provoked much ironical cheering), he showed that their meaning had been entirely misapprehended. Many of the objections urged against the essential principle of the Bill arose from the ambiguous use of the words "University" and "College." While College" only implied teaching provision, "University," as well as teaching, implied the power of giving degrees, and he maintained therefore, that while Colleges could not be over-multiplied, a University ought to have as nearly as possible a monopoly. In this way he justified the scheme of the Bill-the collection of a number of Colleges under a single University. The present necessity for legislation arose from three causes-the imperfect constitution of Trinity College, the insufficient education given at the Queen's Colleges, and the refusal of the Roman Catholic bishops to allow their youth to seek a degree either at Trinity College or the Queen's Colleges. For this grievance this Bill offered an honest and efficient remedy, and in travelling through the various provisions of the Bill he observed, with regard to the apprehensions entertained respecting the affiliation of Colleges, that it was never intended that these Colleges should have any considerable influence in the University, and that in Committee means might easily be taken to prevent this. He regretted that the Roman Catholic bishops had signified their disapproval of the Bill, but that event must be treated as an earthquake, or any other natural calamity which could not be helped. In conclusion, Mr. Lowe spoke of the unexpected hostile criticism the Government had met with, "but," said the right hon.

gentleman, "we have no right to complain of that. There isalways a consolation in these matters, that there are found some faithful spirits when others prove false to us. There are those who will not leave their friends even in the hour of darkest adversity. I have one in my mind of whom I will not speak in prose, but whose conduct I will describe in the language of the poet :

"Come rest in this bosom, my own stricken deer;

Though the herd have all left thee, thy home is still here.
Here at least is a smile which no cloud can o'ercast,

And a heart and a hand all thine own to the last."

The House will see that I am not too high flown in the panegyric I give when I read this letter:- Mr. Gladstone has introduced a measure of University Education that does him great honour, and when perfected by amendment in Committee, and it takes its place in the statute book, it will be a noble crowning to the work of the present Parliament. We must all resume its consideration with an earnest desire to acknowledge the large and generous spirit with which the Government has addressed itself to the subject, and cooperate with the high purposes it has in view; and as the erroneous impression conveyed by Mr. Gladstone's allusion to Sir R. Inglis and the Pope could not pass without notice, I have written this letter with a view of getting it out of the way before we come to the real business."

An Hon. Member-" What is the date of the letter?"

The Chancellor of the Exchequer "7, Richmond Terrace, February 15,' and it is signed by Edward Horsman.' (Cheers and laughter.) I have read to the House that letter, and in the early part of the evening have heard the speech of the right hon. gentleman. I will only say that, whatever faults he may have to find with this Bill, I am sure the House will say its object is to remedy what appears to us a great and crying grievance. We have had a great deal of opposition; we shall have a great deal more; but as the effect of the storm which passes over the sea is only felt a few feet below the surface, I am much mistaken if there is not a vein of thought running below this storm of criticism; and if the people of these islands do not respond to the honesty and fairness of intention of this Bill, and place it, as my right hon. friend said, as the "crowning work of the session." (Cheers.)

Mr. Hardy asked, if Mr. Lowe's argument for the centralization of Universities were good for anything, why should not the London University do the work of examining and giving degrees for Ireland? The grievance proposed to be remedied, as stated by the Roman Catholic bishops, was utterly incapable of being met; but the lay grievance could be removed without the destruction involved in this Bill, and he showed how this could be done on the strictly secular principle, by removing tests, and enlarging the Governing Body on an academical principle. In this he assumed that there would be no affiliation of the Roman Catholic Colleges, since the bishops had refused it. As there was to be no remedy of the ecclesi

astical grievance, therefore, there need be no new University-for he maintained that what was proposed by the Bill was a new University -an extinction, not an extension, of the old. Mr. Hardy objected decidedly to the destruction of the Queen's University, and after some caustic remarks on the form of the new University, he next discussed at some length the duty of the House with regard to the immediate question before it on an amendment. Though this had elicited a very useful discussion, he should prefer to give a decided vote against the second reading, and, alluding to a hint of an appeal to the country thrown out by Mr. Gladstone, he accepted the challenge that this question should be decided by the constituencies.

Although Mr. Lowe had persuaded himself to support a measure which seemed absolutely inconsistent with his known opinions, the course of the debate boded ill to the Government, when at the end of the third day Mr. Cardwell formally announced that many of the most important provisions of the Bill would be open to reconsideration and amendment in Committee. Some Irish members who had previously wavered found in Mr. Cardwell's declaration a reason or an excuse for conforming to the directions of their bishops; and only the most faithful adherents of the Ministry could be trusted to vote for the Bill.

The debate was closed by Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone.

Mr. Disraeli commenced his speech with a vigour that belied the rumours current of his illness, and this power, both of voice and action, was maintained throughout its delivery. Approaching the consideration of the Bill, after the usual and duly anticipated playful thrust at Mr. Horsman, the right hon. gentleman said he could not, upon the bare assertion of Mr. Vernon Harcourt-" at least not yet" -accept as authoritative the assurance of Mr. Vernon Harcourt that the clauses to which objections had been raised were dead. No such declaration had come from any actual member of the Government, and, according to his experience, he had always found that when a Minister said, "Go into Committee, and we will consider your objections," he very rarely failed to maintain the objectionable clauses. He was thus compelled to deal with the Bill as it had been printed, and his first objection to it was that it proposed to found a University that was not universal. It appeared to him a truly marvellous thing, that at an epoch when young men prattled about protoplasm, and young ladies, in gilded saloons, unconsciously talked blasphemy, a Prime Minister, and, above all, the leader of the Liberal party, came forward and proposed a policy which eliminated mental and moral philosophy from the curriculum of a University! The right hon. gentleman was scarcely less astonished at the proposal to prohibit the institution of a chair in modern history, whilst with respect to the constitution of the Governing Council, he thought that even if Mr. Gladstone was unable to furnish a list of their names, he might well afford the House some general information as to the general principles of the selection. With the view of eliciting such information, he, leaning over towards Mr. Gladstone, who was

freely taking notes, propounded a category of questions as to the quality and circumstances of "these anonymous persons." With a half apology for trenching upon the region of " modern history," the right hon. gentleman next proceeded to recapitulate the circumstances of the connexion of the Conservative party with the Roman Catholics. "The right hon. gentleman the First Minister of the Crown says I have burnt my fingers, but," added Mr. Disraeli, holding his hands out across the floor, and shaking them towards the throng at the bar-"but I see no scars. (Cheers and laughter.) The right hon. gentleman opposite has been a pupil of Sir R. Peel. He sat in the Cabinet of Palmerston, who was supposed to be a devoted votary of the policy of concurrent endowment. The right hon. gentleman suddenly-I impute no motives, that is quite unnecessary (laughter)-but the right hon. gentleman suddenly changed his mind and threw over the policy of concurrent endowment -mistaking the clamour of the Nonconformist for the voice of the nation. (Cheers.) The Roman Catholics fell into the trap. They forgot the cause of University education in the prospect of destroying the Protestant Church; and the right hon. gentleman succeeded in his object. The Roman Catholics, having reduced Ireland to a spiritual desert, are discontented and have a grievance; and they come to Parliament in order that we may create a blooming Garden of Eden for them. The Prime Minister is no ordinary man. (Ministerial cheers.) I am very glad that my sincere compliment has obtained for the right hon. gentleman the only cheer which his party have conferred upon him during this discussion. (Opposition cheers and laughter.) The right hon. gentleman had a substitute for the policy of concurrent endowment, which had been killed by the Roman Catholics themselves. The right hon. gentleman substituted the policy of confiscation. (Oh!) You have had four years of it. You have despoiled churches. You have threatened every corporation and endowment in the country. (Cheers.) You have examined into everybody's affairs. You have criticized every profession and vexed every trade. (A laugh.) No one is certain of his property, and nobody knows what duties he may have to perform to-morrow." Although he had been far from willing to make this question the basis of anything like a struggle of party, he had been baffled by the right hon. gentleman himself. "It is the right hon. gentleman himself who has introduced so much passion, and so much, I may almost say, personal struggle into this question. It was the right hon. gentleman who, as the First Minister of the Crown, in introducing a question of a nature somewhat abstruse, and which to the majority of the members of this House must have been not easy at first to comprehend, commenced his harangue by saying, 'I am introducing a measure upon which I intend to stake the existence of my Government.' (Cheers.) That was, in my opinion, an unwise and rather an arrogant declaration. (Cheers.) I have certainly known instances where Ministers introducing into this House large measures which had been prepared with great care, and

feeling for them as much solicitude as the right hon. gentleman does for this Bill-I have certainly known instances where, after protracted debates, and when opinions appeared to be perhaps equally balanced in this House, Ministers have felt themselves authorized, under such circumstances, to say that they were prepared to stake the existence of their Governments upon the question at issue. But I do not recall an instance of any Minister who, on an occasion similar to the present, prefaced a laborious exposition, which by its very length and nature showed that it dealt with a subject which only the transcendent powers of the right hon. gentleman could make clear and lucid to the House, by saying, 'But I tell you in the first place that I stake the existence of the Government upon it."" (Cheers.) He trusted the right hon. gentleman had profited by the remarks which had been made in the course of this debate, and that he now felt that upon the occasion of introducing this measure his vein was somewhat intemperate. (Cheers.) "No one wishes to disturb the right hon. gentleman in his place. If the right hon. gentleman intends to carry out a great policy-that of confiscation

(cheers)—I wish at least that he shall not be able to say that he has not had a fair trial for that policy. I wish the House and the country fully to comprehend all the bearings of that policy of the right hon. gentleman. But although I have not wished to make this a party question, although I have no wish to disturb the right hon. gentleman in his seat, although I have no communication with. any section or with any party in this House, I may say with any individual of my own immediate colleagues, I must do my duty when I am asked, 'Do you or do you not approve this measure?' (Cheers.) I must vote against a measure which I believe to be monstrous in its general principles, pernicious in many of its details, and utterly futile as a measure of practical legislation." Loud and long-continued applause marked the conclusion of the speech, and finally mingled with the cheers from the Ministerial benches which welcomed the appearance of the Premier at the table.

Mr. Gladstone remarked that two-thirds of the speech just delivered had no connexion with the Bill, and drew down loud cheers by calling on the House to note that though Mr. Disraeli had declared " concurrent endowment" to be dead, it yet lived in his mind, and might revive under his magical touch. The attitude taken by the Government in reference to the Bill was not due to any words of his, but to what had happened during the last three years on Mr. Fawcett's Bill. On the contrary, he deprecated sincerely the introduction of religious heat and party temper into the subject, feeling convinced that it must insure failure, and this led him to animadvert sharply on the tone of Mr. Horsman's speech. Repeating once more the grounds on which the measure had been introduced-the grievance of the Catholics, and the necessity for academic reform in Ireland-he replied to Dr. Playfair's statistics on the matter, pointing out where he had made a mistake in his calculations. To any one with an eye for a situation the history of