project of education which was not exclusively under their own control. Five years before they had in a similar spirit rejected the liberal overtures of Lord Mayo; and they may have long to wait before they meet with another Minister so anxious to gratify their unreasonable demands as Mr. Gladstone. Their support might, perhaps, not have insured the passage of the Bill, but their rejection of the offered compromise was decisive. In the debate on the second reading Professor Fawcett distinguished himself by an exceedingly bitter and powerful speech. In the course of it he asserted that the measure would make the condition of University education in Ireland more unsatisfactory than ever, and would create worse evils than those with which it was meant to deal. There was no principle consistently carried out in it-it was a mere compromise intended to please everybody, but which pleased nobody. Against the abolition of the Queen's "University" and the Galway College he protested warmly, showing that the policy of centralization had failed in all foreign countries, and warning the Scotch members that, if they helped to carry this Bill, their four Universities would be united in one before many years. Travelling through the principal points of the measure, Mr. Fawcett took exception to the constitution of the Governing Body, and asked on what principle the selection of its members was to be made-was the qualification to be academical distinction or a balance of religious opinions? Of the gagging clauses, and the degrading censorship of professorial teaching which they involved, Mr. Fawcett spoke with great bitterness; and, speaking as a Cambridge professor, he declared that if such clauses were introduced into the English Universities he would not submit to them. The Bill could lead to no other conclusion but the establishment of denominational education in Ireland. It had not satisfied a single class, and he hoped the House would reject it on its merits without reference to the collateral issue of a Ministerial crisis.

Many of the younger Liberal members followed Mr. Fawcett in denouncing the humiliating precautions of the Bill against proselytism, and the alleged inclination of the Government to conciliate the priesthood. An unlucky remark by Lord Hartington, that it would be desirable to exclude from the new University professors holding the opinions of Mr. Fawcett, involuntarily conveyed the severest satire on the silencing clauses. Mr. Horsman, who had at first congratulated Mr. Gladstone on his happy solution of the puzzle, delivered a powerful speech against the Bill.

He began his criticism by remarking that the favour with which it was originally received was due to the assurance Mr. Gladstone had given that it was to be a settlement. But that delusion had been dispelled by the resolutions of the Roman Catholic bishops, and now it was evident that there was to be no end to the agitation until they obtained all their demands. Under these changed circumstances, Mr. Horsman asked, why does not the Government withdraw the Bill? Nobody wants it-nobody accepts it-it

settles nothing, but unsettles everybody. The Protestants did not want it, the Catholics refused to accept it, and Mr. Gladstone ought to have put an agreeable termination to an ugly business by withdrawing a Bill so impossible. There was no precedent for proceeding with a measure so universally condemned, and why should Parliament have this Bill thrust down its throat against its will as a vote of confidence in the Government? Had any English or Scotch member-Mr. Horsman asked amid loud cheers-ever gone through the hypocrisy of professing to feel confidence in the Government on this question? To ask for such a vote was a piece of effrontery worthy of a cartoon in Punch. When the country understood the Bill, such a vote would be regarded as a vote of confidence in Cardinal Cullen and his priests. Any member who gave such a vote would meet with speedy execution from his constituents.

After discussing the Bill itself, and an amusing criticism of Lord Hartington's speech, in the midst of which a gesture of dissent from Mr. Gladstone incidentally brought upon him a sarcastic allusion to his "equally sudden and auspicious conversion to the policy of disestablishing the Irish Church," which provoked some tumultuous cheering, Mr. Horsman declared that the Bill would lower the standard of University teaching. What a fall for the great English Liberal party to be exhibited in the face of Europe throwing its weight on to the side of the clergy, and conceding to the Roman Catholic bishops a power which they were not permitted to exercise in any other country in Europe! Regarding it as practically impossible to give the names of the Governing Body now, Mr. Horsman advised that all compromise should be abandoned; and, repeating once more that it was little short of an affront to persevere with the Bill, he appealed to the House to vindicate its independence by throwing it out on the second reading.

Mr. C. Fortescue assured the House that the Government had no intention of withdrawing the Bill, and pointed out to Mr. Horsman that if the Roman Catholic bishops had declared against the Bill it was on the ground that it perpetuated the mixed system, which Mr. Horsman said it destroyed. The object of the Bill was to create a National University, and the best mode was by separating Trinity College from the University and creating a new Governing Body. In defence of the Governing Body proposed by the Bill he referred to the National Board of Education, the Council of the Royal Irish Academy, and other similar bodies, in proof that there was no fear of it becoming partisan or discordant. So, also, he ridiculed the apprehension that the Roman Catholics would get the control of the University by means of "bogus" colleges. The Government never had intended that the affiliation should go beyond a certain small number. No doubt the Roman Catholics might obtain an important position in the University, but that was the object of the Bill, and surely the Protestants were not going to confess beforehand that they could not hold their own. As to

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 eloud ean 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