The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-14 00:00:00

THE SUPPLY OF INK.

Mr. CRAWFORD asked the Secretary to the Treasury to
state the quantity and cost of the ink annually purchased
for the public service ; and whether it was supplied by
private contract with one or more firms, or by public
tender.

Mr. STANSFELD replied that the quantity of ink pur-
chased in 1869-70 was 7,916 gallons of liquid ink, 169,392
ink powders, the cost being £3,112 6s. 6d., of which
amount upwards of £1,500 was purchased for and would
be repaid by India. The whole was supplied by private
contract.

THE EDUCATION BILL.

In reply to Lord R. MONTAGU,

Mr. GLADSTONE said that, considering the advanced
period of the session and the desirableness of expediting
the passage of the Education Bill, it was time now to ask
the House to consent to morning sittings. He proposed
that from Friday next they should have morning sittings
especially for the purpose of prosecuting the Education
Bill. It was the intention of the Government to go
through with it without interruption as a general rule.
THE ENGLISH EMBASSY AT C9NSTANTI-

NOPLE.

In reply to Mr. RYLANDS,

.. .
Mr. OTWAY, stated that although the English Embassy
at Constantinople had not been totally destroyed it had
suffered to a very great extent.

UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL.
The House then went into committee on the University
Tests Bill. The two first amendments, proposed by Mr.
J. D. Lewis and Lord Fitzmaurice, were withdrawn, after
a brief discussion, and the first and second clauses were
agreed to. Mr. Stevenson, in Clause 3, moved the omis-
sion of the words, " other than a degree in divinity."
He pointed out that whilst they were opening
out to candidates for the ministry connected with
non-established churches the benefit of the universities, '
they according to the bill denied them the further prose-
cution of the studies in their professional direction when
they said that they should not be opened to the degrees of
divinity. The Solicitor-General said he was not prepared
to accept the extreme liberalism of the hon. gentleman,
because, although they freely opened the universities
without tests, it was essential to reserve divinity degrees
other than honorarydegrees to some definite form of teaching.
After some remarks from Mr. Hadfield, who strongly
advocated what he called freedom of thought, Mr. Glad-
stone said the proposal was to enable degrees in divinity
to be given irrespective of the religious tenets or prin-
ciples which the person who was about to receive the de-
gree might hold, and he asked how far that principle was
to be carried out.—Dr. Lyon Playfair supported the
amendment, referring to the practice in the Universities in
Scotland.—Mr. Winterbotham said he could understand
the secularisation of the universities, but he did not under-
stand ,the secularisation of religion. He urged the
committee to reject the amendment, remarking
that he did not believe the Dissenters had
asked for it. After some further discussion Mr. Steven-
son said that after the expression of opinion from the
Government he should not press his amendment. At the
same time he regretted that the committee could not see its
way to bringing the English universities to the same point
of liberality in this respect as the Scotch universities.—Mr.
Fawcett remarked that the amendment involved an im-
portant principle, and he thought hon. members opposite
were bound to oppose it. But he could not un-
derstand why it should meet with any opposition
from that side of the House. The object of the promoters
of the bill was to make a change in the character of the
old universities of England, and to make them, instead of
Church of England institutions, great national
institutions. The withdrawal of the amendment
having been objected to, the committee divided on the
question that the words proposed to be omitted stand
part of the bill. The result was—Ayes 262, noes 101.
An amendment proposing to leave out ,the words " sub-
sisting at the time of the passing of the Act," was after
some discussion withdrawn by Mr. Vernon Harcourt, the
mover. He gave notice that on the report he should
move that no charter be granted to any college in-
corporated into a university until it had been laid for a
certain time upon the table of the House.
Mr. FAWCETT moved the omission of proviso 1. He
remarked that unless his amendment was carried the
bill would be inconsistent. About 160 fellowships in the
two universities would be left in exactly the same position
when the measure was passed as they were before if the
proviso were permitted to remain.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in opposing the amendment,
said that the bill as it stood was in substance a bill which
had again and again been submitted to both Houses of
Parliament, the result of the deliberations of the leading
men at Cambridge and Oxford, in whom the Government
placed entire confidence, who wished to have the bill sub-"
stantially in the shape it was now in. He believed that
it would be accepted as a reasonable settlement of the diffi-
culty, and an honest attempt to put an end to a state of
things which every one who wished well to the universities
and colleges desired to put fl,n end to. Mr. Gladstone
said that in the autumn he had had an interview with
what might justly be called a representative deputation
from the non-conforming bodies, and it was understood
that the bill should contain no provision for the abolition
of the college statutes which related to clerical fellow-
ships. Mr. Fawcett divided the committee, when his
amendment was rejected by a majority of 157 to 79.
Several other amendments were considered. Before nine
o'clock, the schedule and preamble of the bill were
agreed to.