he had never said—indeed, it was not within his power to say-that the debate should be adjourned until Thursday. He did not know what the arrangement of the Business for next week would be, and it was quite out of his power to give any undertaking as to an adjournment of the debate. for no reply from his hon. Friends and himself. Let the Evening Sitting on Tuesday be sufficient or insufficient, he confessed he was willing to abide by the decision then arrived at. He understood the noble Marquess to entitle him to infer that if a large number of Members found it imperative on them to speak on the question the Govern- MR. BIGGAR said, that, after the ment would not oppose an adjournment appeal made to him by his hon. Friend until Thursday for the purpose of con- the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and cluding the debate. On that under-after the explanation of the noble Marstanding, he should be disposed not to quess the Secretary of State for India, quarrel with the arrangement made. If he begged leave to withdraw his Mothe speech of the Prime Minister were tion. satisfactory to the Irish Members, they would not be under the necessity of entering into a debate at all; and, therefore, he would suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) the desirability of withdrawing his Motion. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, however anxious he might be that this controversy should terminate, he should be unwilling it should terminate under any misapprehension; and there were two misapprehensions he thought Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to. Main Question put, and agreed to. Committee deferred till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock. QUESTIONS. it his duty to correct. It had been alto- CORRUPT PRACTICES (DISFRANCHISEgether erroneously assumed throughout the discussion that the Prime Minister had announced an intention of making a general statement with regard to Irish affairs on Tuesday next. All his right hon. Friend said, in reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), was that he thought it would be more convenient to answer the Question put to him by that hon. Gentleman on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay), because that Motion would give an opportunity, if necessary, of debate. His right hon. Friend never said that it was his intention on Tuesday to make any general statement with regard to Irish affairs. The other misapprehension was that he (the Marquess of Hartington) had given any undertaking that the debate would, if it was thought desirable, be adjourned from Tuesday until Thursday. What he said was that it was utterly impossible, until the debate had taken place, for them to come to any decision as to an adjournment. Of course, if it was the desire of a large portion of the House that the debate should be adjourned, the Government would not offer any unreasonable opposition; but MENT) BILL. SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he could state on what day it would be possible to take the second reading of the Corrupt Practices (Disfranchisement) Bill? It was a Bill on which it was obviously necessary that there should be considerable discussion; and he thought it was also desirable that before long that discussion should take place. He did not know that it was possible for the Government to say when the Bill would be taken; but he hoped they would be able to say that it would be before a certain day. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am afraid it is impossible to say when that discussion can take place. WAYS AND MEANS. MR. R. N. FOWLER asked the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, If he could say when Ways and Means would be taken? LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH said, he thought the hon. Gentleman might have seen by what had taken place that it was perfectly impossible to say. ORDERS OF THE DAY. 19:0:4 PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (No. 2) BILL. the Amendment was introduced in order to produce complete reciprocity between the Three Kingdoms, in which at present the jurisdiction was not the same. The words of the clause were "Nothing contained in this Act shall authorize the registration in an Inferior Court of a certificated judgment for any greater amount than might have been recovered." MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Notice ought to be given of a new clause brought up on the consideration of a Bill. Therefore this new clause cannot be proposed without Notice. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, it was necessarily one of much detail; and he would suggest that it should be read a second time, and then be referred to the same Committee as the Bill about to be introduced by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had been good-(Mr. Healy.) enough to say that the Government would agree to that course; and he (Sir John Lubbock) hoped the House would also consent to it. The Bill had been very carefully prepared by the Society of Arts, and in their name he asked the House to consent to the second reading. It was of a comprehensive character, and went into the whole question very fully; but it was made up of a great number of separate points, which could be better dealt with in Committee than by the House. Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,". Sir John Lubbock,)-put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 22nd May. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) said, he would agree to the Motion. Question put, and agreed to. MR. MONK said, he would name Monday for the further consideration of the Bill. MR. WARTON said, he objected to Monday decidedly, and complained that the Bill had been hurried on, simply because of the rapid action and low tone of voice of the hon. Member for Glouces ter (Mr. Monk). The other evening he (Mr. Warton) had done what he could to help this Bill; but it was very awkward for the hon. Member for Gloucester to try, by sharp practice, to pass the Bill through the House. He therefore asked that time should be allowed for considering the effect of this clause, and if the hon. Member would consent to name Thursday that time would be obtained. He was not going to have Bills passed in that way. He always accepted what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland said; but there must be proper time given for consideration. MR. BUCHANAN hoped the hon. Member in charge of the Bill (Mr. Monk) would listen to this appeal. The new clause had not been put on the Paper; but it affected the interests of Scotland, and he hoped the hon. Member would accede to the request. MR. MONK said, the Amendments made to the Bill had been on the Paper for three weeks. [Mr. WARTON: Not this clause.] That new clause had been approved by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate; and he (Mr. Monk) understood from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that it only affected Ireland. He, therefore, should name Monday for the further consideration of the Bill. MR. WHITLEY said, he understood from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland's explanation that the proposed limitation would affect the whole of the United Kingdom. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Monk) would allow the Bill to stand over until the following Thursday. MR. MONK said, if it was the general wish of the House he would postpone the Bill until next Thursday. Further Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next. House adjourned at Three o'clock HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, 1st May, 1882. a fact, is to be held to indicate that the arrangement is provisional, or that the existence of the Lord Lieutenancy is provisional, or that the existence of the Lord Presidency is provisional; also, whether we are to infer from this change that any change is also about to take place in the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland; and whether they have any new measure or new proposals to announce with respect to the appalling condition into which Ireland has lapsed? But, first of all, and most of all, for what reason it is, if a reason can be given, that the Lord Lieutenant has resigned? EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have been some time longer than the noble Marquess in this House, and I am not aware of the precedent on which he rests for asking nine Questions without the slightest Notice, either public or private. If the noble Marquess will repeat his nine Questions on Thursday, I will endeavour to give an answer. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wish to give Notice that I will ask the noble Earl, in order to give him time to ascertain the facts, which, no doubt, he has not had an opportunity of ascertaining, whether Lord Cowper has resigned; whether Lord Spencer is to hold the place, in commendam; and whether Her Majesty's Government have any new policy in regard to Ireland; and what are the reasons for Lord Cowper's resignation? IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERN-noble Earl is ignorant on these subjects. I can perfectly understand that the MINUTES.]-SELECT COMMITTEE-Claims of STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS - THE MENT THE LORD LIEUTENANCY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have waited some minutes in the full expectation that the Leader of the House would have vouchsafed some explanation as to the prodigies which have appeared in the political sky; but, as the noble Earl is silent, I am compelled, according to what I believe is the usage, to ask whether any explanation will be given of the resignation, if it is true, by a Member of your Lordships' House whom we all highly respect, of the highly responsible Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; whether it is true that the Office is to be held in commendam as a subordinate Office of the Lord Presidency of the Council by the noble Lord who now occupies that post; whether such a junction, if it be EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, as the noble Marquess has reduced the number of his Questions from nine to four it will make it easier for me to answer them. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will ask the Questions to-morrow. OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSI- SHIP.-OBSERVATIONS. THE EARL OF CARNARVON rose to call attention to the provision made for religious teaching and worship in the Statutes laid on the Table of the House by the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Commissioners. The noble Earl said, that they were within two days of the time when it would be necessary for their Lordships to express assent to, or come to nought; and no such safeguards now existed for religious teaching and discipline as had been promised. He next came to the Statutes themselves, as framed by the University Commission. There was a good deal of difference in the Statutes as regarded the different Colleges. Those Statutes contained provisions-first, regarding Clerical Headships; secondly, regarding Cle dissent from, the Statutes which lay on the Table of the House; and, therefore, now or never, the House should express its opinion on the subject. Those Statutes, taken in combination with the Acts constituting the powers of the Commissioners, effected a material change in the studies, discipline, worship, and religious instruction of the Universities; but in his observations he should confine himself entirely to the religious ques-rical Fellowships; and, thirdly, regarding tion and the University of Oxford. In former years the system of religious instruction and worship in Chapel was a clearly defined system, though different Acts of Parliament had been passed, and had greatly modified that system. First, there was the great University Reform of 1854. Since that time various provisions had been made by the Legislature, the most important of which was the Act of 1871, by which tests were abolished in the Universities. Finally, there was the Act of 1877, upon which the present Commission was appointed. In all those Acts there were very distinct provisions for promoting the designs of the Founders and benefactors of Colleges in our Universities; and the Acts required that the Universities should be mainly what they were in former days-places of religion and learning. In the Preamble of the original Act, to which he had referred, it was laid down that the object in view was to promote the main designs of Founders and donors. The Act of 1871, in its Preamble, defined the Universities as places of learning and religion. In the enacting part it was said that nothing was to interfere with the system of worship and discipline, according to the Established Church. Lastly, provision was made for the performance of religious service in the College Chapels. The Act of 1877 re-affirmed all those principles even more strongly. Clause 14 referred to the designs of Founders and donors; Clause 15 declared that the Commissioners should have regard to the interests of religion; Clause 59 reaffirmed the clause in the original Act of 1871, to which he had called attention. In addition to that, distinct assurances had repeatedly been given to quiet all alarm on the subject. He called attention to these facts, because, partly by direct legislation, partly in consequence of the powers given to the Governing Bodies, all those promises had practically College Chapels. The question of Clerical Headships he regarded as an important one, and now more important than ever, though he should not discuss it. It had, on former occasions, been much debated, and his opinion remained unaltered. But the case of Clerical Fellowships was even more important, because in the Fellows rested the whole teaching and influencing power in the Universities. He would take the case of Christ Church. In the old days there were 101 students, of whom 97 were in Orders, and four faculty or lay students. Now there were to be only three in Orders, and all the rest would probably be laymen. He mentioned this to show how great was the revolution proposed. Brasenose had formerly six Fellows in Orders; now the number was limited to one. Lastly, as he had said, there were the College Chapels. In old days the Chapels might be described as the Parish Churches of the undergraduates. They had now ceased to have any such character, and attendance at Chapel was now optional. He would observe, also, that, under the old system, all the authorities of Colleges that directed and controlled the Chapel belonged to the Church of England. What were now the Governing Bodies of the Colleges? They were composed partly of resident and partly of non-resident members of the Universities, and these latter had little or no knowledge of the actual state of the Colleges; nor was there any reason whatever why the members of those Governing Bodies should profess any religion at all. Yet those Bodies appointed College Chaplains and dismissed them at pleasure. Further, they had full power to regulate the Services in any fashion they pleased; they could provide how and when the Communion was to be administered, and arrange any detail of the Services. Whatever religious discipline there might be lay with that Body to enforce or not. They had even the very for that purpose. This clergyman, who was to be the sole representative of religion in these matters, was in many cases a man receiving an utterly inadequate stipend, and his position would be a feeble one against the great forces arrayed against him. The position of such a clergyman would be very similar to that of a chaplain in the houses of the rich in the 17th century, as described by the great Whig historian of England. He would be a tame Levite, whose first duty it would be to make himself agreeable to the common rooms of the future, and whose religious attributes might easily be limited to his black coat and white necktie. It was not his intention to move to omit these objectionable clauses from the Statutes, as he believed that the Universities needed rest after the long period of Parliamentary agitation through which they had passed; and he would not, therefore, be a party to throwing them back into that state of agitation. Heaccepted those Statutes simply because he bowed to superior force; but he protested against them, and he distinctly wished it to be understood that he was no consenting party to legislation which he believed to be both dangerous and remarkable power of altering, varying, | the hands of a clergyman to be appointed or abridging Services as they pleased. The result was that the power of regulating the whole religious teaching and discipline of the University had been placed in the hands of men not necessarily professing any religious belief whatever, even in the existence of a Supreme Being. There was thus nothing left of the original purposes of the Founders. In many of the Colleges there had been a complete revolution in religious feeling. The old learning and religion had been absolutely divorced, and the old relations between culture and Christianity had been severed. He should not overstate matters when he said that numbers of young men in recent years had returned from the University with their belief in religion gone, and their faith sapped, in consequence of their connection with their Colleges. It might be said that this had arisen from many other causes, and especially from that atmosphere of doubt which pervaded every department of inquiry in the present day. It was, doubtless, true in part; but the change mainly arose from the legislation which had been pressed on for Party purposes, and in a Party spirit, the results of which had been repeatedly predicted, and were now all but verified. None had been more active, unfortunately, than the Dissenters, and they were already beginning to learn that on them the blow must fall first and heaviest. It might be said that under the old system there was often little real religion, and that the Chapel Service was, in fact, but a mere roll-call. In certain cases he believed that was true; but there was this great difference between the two cases. In former days they had all the machinery for religious life, though often unused; now it was the intention to sweep that machinery entirely away, and to leave all the surrounding influences adverse to religion. The leading objections that he had to the Statutes were, first, that the responsibility on the part of the authorities of the College in religious teaching would cease to exist; secondly, that the machinery of religious influence and teaching had been swept away; thirdly, that the teaching would be taken out of the hands of the Governing Bodies; and, fourthly, that it would be placed where no Clerical Fellow could be got to undertake the instruction, in wrong. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY said, that their Lordships would, no doubt, allow him to say a few words on that subject, especially when they knew that he rose to give Notice, on behalf of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lincoln), that he would, on Friday of next week, move the rejection of the Statutes which had been framed by the Commissioners for Lincoln College. He thanked the noble Earl for the speech which he had just delivered. He did not think, however, that the effect of the Statutes would be to sweep away religious teaching so entirely as the noble Earl seemed to fear, because, inadequate as the arrangements were, they still furnished some means by which, under a happier state of things, the religious life of the University could be maintained. As regarded Lincoln College, however, he thought that there was nothing to be done but to reject the Statutes, in the hope that a better scheme might be prepared and adopted. There was one point to which he would venture to call attention, which was connected with_the_legal aspect of the whole matter. But he would |