scholars increased immediately from 200 to 300, and the master himself was one of the earliest converts to the advantage of the change that had been effected.

Earl Fortescue, while acknowledging that it was of the utmost importance that endowments by being made useful should be relieved from discredit, thought that care should be taken that the confidence of founders should not be shaken by undue interference with their wishes and intentions. Some distinction ought, in his opinion, to be drawn between cases where money had been given purely for educational purposes and where money had been given for purposes which were mixed.

The Archbishop of York could testify, from personal knowledge, that no complaint had been made against the Oxford University Act on account of the time having been fixed at fifty instead of a hundred years. He should, therefore, support the clause as it

stood.

The Marquis of Salisbury altered his amendment so as to confine the operation of the Bill to endowments founded previously to the year 1800; and on this amendment the Committee divided, with the following result:

This valuable measure soon afterwards received the Royal assent. The Bill for the relaxation of the tests required upon taking degrees in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which had been rejected by the House of Lords in 1868, was again introduced by Sir J. D. Coleridge, Solicitor-General, but in his individual character, and not as a Government measure. In moving the second reading on February 10, the learned gentleman stated that it was a reprint of the Bill of last year. He believed it would be necessary at a very early period to restrict the power which the Visitors now had of placing a veto on any alterations which Colleges might make in their statutes. The change now proposed, he maintained, was as harmless as it was inevitable, and he urged his opponents to have confidence in the vitality of Christianity and the Established Church, apart from legislative protection, and not to raise the fruitless cry of "No Surrender."

Mr. Mowbray opposed the Bill. He admitted that the Universities were national institutions, as the Church of England was, but he denied that they were founded by the State or supported by it. Both Universities and Colleges, he maintained, had always been connected with some distinctive form of religious teaching, but this Bill would altogether destroy their religious character. The change was quite unnecessary, for the Cambridge system, which Oxford was quite ready to accept, would admit Dissenters to all the advantages of educational culture. The Universities had deserved well of

the nation by their admirable system of education, and that they had not trained young men illiberally was proved by the fact that, with the exception of Mr. Bright and Mr. Forster, all the leading Members of the present Government were University men.

Sir R. Palmer said that as in 1854 he had opposed the first introduction of Dissenters to the Universities-foreseeing that the demand would not stop there-so now he would oppose this Bill (inevitable though he admitted it to be), if he believed that it would be subversive of the influence and authority of religion on the teaching of the University. But on this point he had changed his mind, and holding that the disassociation of religion from the University teaching would be a national calamity, he denied that the Bill would have that effect. Its promoters had always disavowed that object, but he was bound to say that their disavowal was not stamped with sufficient clearness on the Bill. The Christianity and the Church-of-England character of Convocation, University, and Colleges were secured, not by tests, but by the statutes of the Universities and the Colleges, which the Bill did not in any way alter. Neither legally nor morally was the subscription test as reliable a security for the influence of religion on University teaching as the other securities which would remain untouched. But thinking that the importance of maintaining this connexion should be more clearly expressed in the Bill, he proposed to insert words recognizing the Universities as places of religion and learning, and the necessity of maintaining them as such; and also to add two clauses, one of which would contain an undertaking for all lay professors against teaching any thing contrary to the Divine authority of Holy Scripture and the doctrines of the Church of England.

Mr. G. O. Morgan supported the Bill, arguing that the Universities are national institutions, and not mere nurseries for the clergy. To the present system of tests he objected that they limited the area of selection for University offices and excluded from University prizes half, and that not the least intelligent portion, of the population. While they startled men of tender consciences they were taken without scruple by sceptics and men on the verge of Romanism.

Mr. Playfair supported the Bill by an appeal to the experience of the Scotch Universities, where the abolition of tests had brought the Universities into closer sympathy with the people without weakening their connexion with the Church. No Roman Catholic or infidel had yet been elected to a professional chair in Scotland. He urged the claims of Presbyterians to be admitted to the English Universities, and predicted for them a more vigorous life when these denominational barriers had been. broken down.

Mr. Hardy intimated that the Opposition, after the important amendments given notice of by Sir R. Palmer, would not divide. against the second reading. Reviewing the small beginnings of

this Bill, he inferred that it was the precursor of a larger measure, and from permissive would become compulsory; and he was unable to understand the complacency with which Sir R. Palmer regarded the intentions of its promoters. Mr. Hardy drew a gloomy picture of the confusion and discord which would be caused by the introduction of persons of different religions into the governing bodies, and defended the title of the Universities to their endowments, as derived from the original founders through the Reformation. The end of the proposed policy would be the secularization of the endowments, and the Dissenters would gain no benefit from the concession they sought. As to Sir R. Palmer's amendments, they did not seem to be acceptable to the supporters of the Bill, nor did he expect to be able to concur in them.

Mr. Walpole said that he, like Mr. Hardy, would suspend his opposition until he should have seen the amendments, and the Solicitor-General intimated he would agree to the first of them, so as to make it more clear that the Bill was not intended to sever the connexion between University education and religion; but the second he could not accept.

The Bill was read a second time nem. con.

On the clauses proposed by Sir Roundell Palmer being moved in Committee, the first, which declared that the Act should not interfere with the lawfully established system of religious education, worship, or discipline of the Universities, was carried without opposition. But the second, exacting a form of declaration to be taken by professors, tutors, and lecturers, received so little support that the learned gentleman withdrew it after a short discussion.

Mr. Fawcett moved a new clause, enabling one-third of the Fellows of a College to call a meeting at which a majority present might alter or repeal any statute imposing a religious test. It received support from some members, but was opposed by the Solicitor-General and by Mr. Bouverie, on the ground that it was at variance with the permissive character of the Bill.

The only divisions that took place in Committee resulted in large majorities in favour of the Bill. On the third reading no debate took place, but the opponents called for a division, in which the numbers were 116 in favour of, and 65 against the Bill. In the House of Lords, however, it met with a different reception. Earl Russell having moved the second reading, the Earl of Carnarvon opposed the motion. The noble lord conceded that the feeling in favour of some relaxation of University Tests, and of admitting Dissenters from the Church of England was increasing. But the removal of tests in the case of college foundations came before the House now for the first time. As to this point, he was apprehensive that if tests were all abolished there would be no adequate security for the moral and religious character of collegiate education. His own opinion was that almost half the total number of fellows was required for the working of a college.

In respect, then, of that proportion, he was inclined to retain the present tests. The rest he would convert into University fellowships, and would throw them open, without regard to religious opinions. In this manner the Church of England and Dissenters would both gain, though the latter in a greater degree. With the object of giving time for the consideration of this question he moved the previous question.

The Earl of Morley supported the Bill on the ground that the retention of such tests was inconsistent with the tendency of the age. He was, moreover, persuaded that they were not merely unnecessary, but even injurious.

The Bishop of Gloucester considered that Lord Carnarvon had acted wisely in moving the previous question. He was opposed to the removal of tests in the case of University professors and of members of the governing body of the Universities. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the hardship of the existing exclusion of Dissenters from a share in the prizes which their talents entitled them to. He therefore agreed in the advantages of the suggestion to appropriate a certain number of fellowships, though scarcely so many as half, as University fellowships, the remainder being reserved for the purposes of the colleges, whose government he should be very unwilling to interfere with.

The Earl of Camperdown maintained that it would be a confession of intellectual inferiority on the part of the Church of England for it to insist on keeping a monopoly of half the fellowships. The true defence of the Bill was, he argued, that it was a compromise, and he believed it would be imprudent in the interests of the Church of England to reject it.

Lord Lyttelton, though in favour of a relaxation of the existing bars to admission into the Colleges, as distinguished from the Universities, had always been disinclined to compelling the Colleges to admit Dissenters. But this Bill left them their freedom of action, and he should therefore vote for it.

On a division the Bill was rejected by 91 to 54.

A very short time elapsed after the passing of the Irish Church Act before it bore fruit in the settlement of a question which had long been a matter of keen, and sometimes acrimonious controversy, the restrictions on the Scholarships and Fellowships of Trinity College. Mr. Fawcett, on one of the last days of the Session, had given notice of a resolution in favour of the removal of these restrictions, but now found himself somewhat unexpectedly anticipated by the voluntary act of the authorities of that institution. In proposing his motion Mr. Fawcett made some observations on the rival schemes that had been suggested: one for affiliating denominational Colleges to the University, and another for a divisional alteration of Trinity College. He argued that his own scheme of opening the College to men of all denominations would be the most advantageous to the Irish people. Alluding to the anticipated readiness of the authorities of Trinity College to

accept his suggestion, he predicted that it would open to it the widest career of usefulness, and he pointed out various internal reforms which were necessary, such as the simplification of the modes of election and the equalization of the emoluments of the senior and junior fellows.

Dr. Ball, declining to discuss at this period of the Session a motion which involved the whole question of University education in Ireland, stated to the House that he had been informed by the Board of Trinity College of their intention, under the altered ecclesiastical condition of Ireland, not to oppose it.

Mr. C. Fortescue, admitting the duty of the Government to deal in due time with the question, intimated that he could not support the resolution, as it did not meet the case of those who had reason to complain of the present state of University education in Ireland. Their grievance was not that they could not obtain the highest dignities and emoluments of Trinity College, but that they could not obtain a University degree except by passing through colleges constructed on a system not acceptable to the majority of the population. The resolution did not remedy this sense of inequality, and he pointed out that the question could not be dealt with on the same considerations in a country where the bulk of the population was Roman Catholic as where it only interested different sections of Protestants.

Mr. Fawcett, in reply, said that it would be useless at this period of the Session to divide the House, but he protested against the leaning to the denominational system apparent in Mr. Fortescue's speech, and warned him that he must not expect the support of the Liberal party for such views.

Mr. H. A. Bruce having disclaimed the interpretation thus put upon his colleague's speech, the motion was withdrawn.

The annual vote for Public Education was moved by Mr. W. E. Forster in Committee of Supply. It amounted to 840,7117. The right hon. gentleman prefaced his motion by an explanatory statement. He informed the House that there was an increase of 49,0007. in the vote-44,0007. on the day-schools, and 50007. on the night-schools-of which 36,000l. was due to an increase in the number of children educated. Grants were made to 10,857 dayschools and 1941 night-schools, and these afforded accommodation for 1,660,000 children. The number registered on the books was 1,453,000, but the average attendance was only 978,000 in the day-schools, and 55,000 in the night-schools. The grants to these schools amounted to 414,900., which was supplemented by 420,7427. of school fees, and 472,7507. in subscriptions and endowments. Speaking on the quality of the education given, Mr. Forster adduced the fact that 428,000 day-scholars and 35,500 night-scholars had passed without failure, being about 67 per cent. While the increase in the population was about 1 per cent. per annum, there had been an increase of 7 per cent. in the number of children attending school, 8 per cent. in those