COLLEGES (IRELAND).

HC Deb 10 July 1845 vol 82 cc321-77

Sir James Graham

, at the five o'clock sitting, moved the Third Reading of the Colleges (Ireland) Bill.

Mr. Bernal Osborne

rose to bring forward the Amendment of which he had given notice, for an Address to Her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry to be made into the amount of the revenues of Trinity College, Dublin. He said that he was fully sensible, at this advanced period of the Session, when the fatigues of July legislation overcame the energies of the House, that it was impossible for any Member to succeed in rousing the dormant attention, or in exciting the wasted energies of the Members of the House in favour of some particular subject. He felt, therefore, the difficulty of awakening the attention of hon. Members on the subject of his Motion, to the extent which the importance of the question so pre-eminently deserved; but, at the same time, it was his intention to condense what he felt it necessary to say in the smallest possible compass. He did not believe that he could be fairly charged with throwing any unnecessary impediment in the way of this measure, because, in accordance with the request of the right hon. Baronet, he had withdrawn his Motion on a former occasion, at a time when he had the chance of a much larger number of hon. Members present, and consequently a much greater probability of support than at present. The more he considered the subject, the more did he feel the force of the allegation that the measure was one which must be wholly inefficient for the purpose for which it was proposed, unless some great change were effected in the constitution of Trinity College, Dublin. He entertained no hostility to that institution. On the contrary, he had many friends among its members. But he could not conceal from himself the fact that the whole system pursued in that College was so totally unknown, that while the darkness respecting it was maintained, a stop must be put to all legislation in that House in any way connected with it. He would ask hon. Members, when they considered the vast and great resources of Ireland, and also when they recollected that the Roman Catholic gentry of that country annually send 10,000l. to the Society at Lyons for the Propagation of the Faith, whether the people of that country should be induced to look to the Consoli- dated Fund when any new institution was to be raised. During the present Session they had drawn considerable sums from that fund for the endowment of a Roman Catholic College, contrary to the feeling of the great majority of the tax-payers of this country. They were also called upon by that measure to take from the same source another amount for the Colleges, and which was to be done against the wishes of the Catholic bishops; and it was impossible to say what dips might be made into it in the course of next Session. The Land Commissioners also looked very temptingly at this fund; for they suggested or recommended that a grant for the Irish Constabulary should be taken from this source. He did not mean to enter upon this question at present; but he had no doubt that the Irish Members of that House would be constantly looking to this fund, as the pool of Bethesda was by cripples, that they might have a dip when the right hon. Baronet troubled the waters. Although he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick in many things, he could not agree with him that it was not with good intentions that the Government brought forward this measure; but he believed that the wiser and more satisfactory course would have been, if they had in the first place made inquiry into the revenues of Trinity College, Dublin, with a view to the establishment of these institutions in connexion with that University. At this moment the whole of the higher education in Ireland was monopolized by eighteen or twenty Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, who took to themselves all the endowments of that rich University. He found, from a return which had been laid before Parliament, that only one in 320,000 Roman Catholics went to that College; those who did attend were received there as long as the heads of the University could get any money for their education, but afterwards excluded them from all the endowments. On a late occasion the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin, when he was not present, resisted all inquiry into the subject, on the ground that the revenues of the College were private. Did the right hon. Gentleman represent the Colleges in that House in a private or corporate capacity? The Legislature had interfered with and remodelled the rights of all the municipal corporations in Ireland; and did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that Parliament could not interfere with Trinity College as a corporation? As to the distinction between private and corporate rights, he would refer to the authority of a most eminent jurist on the point. He alluded to Sir James Macintosh. That eminent man said— Private property was one of those fundamental acts which constituted society. It was the band of society itself. But the acts which form and endow corporations are subsequent, and subordinate; the property of individuals is established as a general principle which seems coeval with society itself; but bodies, whether ecclesiastical or civil, are instruments fabricated by the Legislature for a specific purpose, which ought to be preserved whilst they are beneficial, amended when they are impaired, and rejected when they become useless and injurious. He regarded this to be a clear distinction between public and private property; and notwithstanding the strenuous opposition which he might expect from the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin, and some other persons connected with Trinity College, he felt that he should have the support of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford; for that hon. Gentleman had said that he would vote for inquiry if any allegation of abuse were brought forward. Now, if he brought forward allegations of abuse, and if he proved satisfactorily that the charter had been violated, and that the endowments had been diverted from the purposes for which they were intended, and that the academical system had been changed, he should rely upon the support of the hon. Baronet. He probably should be met with the cuckoo cry, that this was a Protestant institution, established by a Protestant Queen for Protestant purposes. He would not be stopped by such an objection. He believed that, on inquiry, the religious opinions of Queen Elizabeth would not be considered to have been orthodox by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford. But let them see how much Protestant money was devoted to the endowment of this College. It was founded in 1592 by Queen Elizabeth, and it was endowed out of the confiscated estate of the Earl of Desmond, and it was built on the site of the Catholic monastery of Allhallows. The letter of the Lord Deputy, would show for what purpose this University was founded; he would, therefore, read an extract from it (A.P. 1591):— Whereby knowledge, learning, and civility may be increased among the Irish, and their children's children, especially those that be poor (as it were in an orphans' hospital, freely), may have their learning and education given them with more ease and lesser charges than in other Universities they can attain it. So far, then, from its being endowed with Protestant money for an exclusive purpose, it was endowed with public money for public purposes. He defied the hon. Member to point out a single word in the charter which justified the assertion that it was for exclusive Protestant purposes. It was reserved to forty years later, when Strafford, for his own and his master's purposes, chose to introduce some arrangements with respect to Roman Catholic Fellows. He would go to the foundation of this institution; and when he was told that it was a College endowed with Protestant money for Protestant purposes, he would recommend those who alleged this to go to the fons et origo of this establishment. He understood that the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin alluded to the Oath of Supremacy the other evening, and intimated that the existence of that would prevent Catholics taking part in the University. If this was the case, why allow them to take degrees? The Member for Oxford, who was well acquainted with the history of his own and all other countries, must be aware that the system with respect to the Fellows in Trinity College was peculiar, and a departure from the general academical system. In fact the whole system of the University of Dublin was an anomaly, because the Fellows consisted of married persons. The rule and custom of the University had been changed in this respect within the last five years. It was enough to make Queen Elizabeth shudder in her grave to hear of a body of married priests holding the fellowships in the College established by her. Supposing, then, that the University had the power of abrogating the Statute in one instance, as they had done in this case, was it to be said that they had not the power in another? He was sure that Queen Elizabeth would have been more readily reconciled to the abandonment of a religious test with respect to a chemical professor, than to a body of married Fellows in the College. He thought that the hon. Member for Oxford could hardly resist his Motion, for the body of married Fellows was contrary to the whole system of academical institutions; and they might say of it that it was a gigantic scheme of collegiate connubiality. Though they had a body of married priests, Fellows of the College, residing within the walls of the University, he was told that a very small number of the Fellows attended in hall, and still fewer were present in chapel, which certainly was not a good example to set to the students. The object of the ecclesiastical patronage of the College was altogether nullified since the Fellows had been allowed to marry; for since that time only two had resigned their fellowships to take a living. The junior Fellow refused to resign and go out to a country living, where he would get an income of about 300l. a year, while he was secure of a good income, a residence in a very pleasant place, and his domus et placens uxor in Dublin. The truth was, that no Fellow who could get a wife would take a living. [Laughter.] This might appear to be a farce, but it was an undoubted fact, and he knew that a Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, was considered a most eligible investment in the coteries there. He believed that the hon. Gentleman would agree with him so far. There was another allegation of abuse which he could establish. Every Fellow on his induction into his Fellowship took an oath in which was the following passage:—"Studiorum finis erit mihi theologiæ professio, ut ecclesiæ Dei prodesse possim." Now, so far from the Fellows of Trinity College devoting themselves to the study of divinity, several of them were eminent mathematicians, but the divines were few and far between. The great proportion, in fact, of the Fellows were men of science and mathematicians, and among them he could mention the names of Hamilton, Lloyd, and Robinson. Trinity College was composed of one Provost, seven senior Fellows, and twenty-five junior Fellows. There were twenty-five Professors. It was a difficult thing to ascertain the amount of their incomes, as there was no Income Tax in Ireland; but having taken some pains to inquire into the subject, he had no hesitation in saying that the gross revenues of Trinity College were 50,000l. a year. He would not weary the House by going into details on the subject, but he would give a sketch of the receipts from various sources. He took some of his estimates from the University Calendar of 1844, and others from members of the University. It appeared that the total of the income derived from teaching was 28,316l. a year. The rent from land held under the College, although it was difficult to get at it accurately, was very great. Some of the land must be very valuable, such as Brunswick-street and other streets in the neighbourhood; and, therefore, the estimate of the rental might be fairly taken at 21,684l. a year, thus making a total of 50,000l. a year. Of course if he knew exactly the amount of revenue of the College, all necescessity for his Motion would be obviated. Such, he believed, was really the amount of the income, while, the money expended in prizes, scholarships, &c., was only 4,404l. 14s. It was also stated, that with this deduction, and after the common expenses of the College were paid, the Fellows divided the remainder among them. ["No!"] Surely, if hon. Gentlemen would not agree to the Motion, they would favour him by stating how it was paid. At any rate, the duties of the Fellows were at an inverse ratio to their emoluments; for their duties were extremely small, while their incomes were very large. The seven senior Fellows were supposed to receive from 2,000l. to 3,000l. a year each. [Mr. Shaw: No.] Then, what did they receive? Why not lay a return on the Table of the House of their emoluments, or consent to inquiry? The junior Fellows received 1,500l. a year each, and besides this, the Fellows laid violent hands on many of the professorships. One of the senior Fellows, whose name it was unnecessary to mention, but who was a most excellent man, was regius professor of Greek, and he combined very oddly with this the offices of catechist and professor of oratory. There was another, who was also a catechist and professor of modern history and civil law. Thus, in addition to an income of 2,000l. a year from their fellowships, they received large fixed salaries attached to the professorships. He would appeal to any rational man whether they should not look for a different standard of eligibility for a professorship than the holding a University fellowship. Was it not obvious that a much better system was pursued in the Universities of Scotland and Germany, where the test of excellence and the amount of emolument depended upon the number of students attending the lectures of the professor? If the professors in Trinity College were paid ac- cording to the number of their pupils, and by them, their professorships would be worth between 30l. and 40l. a year each. This appeared farcical and ridiculous, yet they were told by the hon. Gentleman that they could not interfere, because it was private property? Look to the University of Dublin as the seat of education of the Protestant youths. As was truly said the other night by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, a forced attendance at chapel was not very likely to generate a feeling of devotion and reverence. But those intended for holy orders were forced to attend at chapel, and the only other religious instruction they received was an examination in the Greek Testament. When they were preparing for ordination they went to a person called a "crammer," and they then took up "Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History," "Magee on the Atonement," and "Marsh's Lectures." They then went forth to country districts as clergymen, and from the nature of the education they received, entertained the most bitter feelings against the Catholic religion, regarding it, as it had been described in another place, as the master-piece of Satan. Here was a Protestant clergyman receiving his education in a place where all the emoluments were bestowed on Protestants, and where the Catholics were sedulouly excluded from every place of trust and emolument, which naturally engendered a feeling as to the inferiority of the latter. He repudiated all distinctions between institutions founded by the endowments of Catholics or Protestants. If there was an endowment of a Catholic institution from Protestant money, you would complain—how then could you take the endowment for the Protestant Church from the Catholics? But in this case did they intend to keep up Protestant exclusiveness in this College? He had always understood that the institutions were made for the people, and not the people for the institutions. On this point he would refer to a speech made a short time ago by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. That right hon. Gentleman declared that he could see no relation between science and sects, and then proceeded to say— In the case of metaphysics and moral philosophy, I can see no possible reason or necessity for requiring professors of any particular creed in order to render them competent teachers in those branches of instruction; and as for the other three branches, logic, geology, anatomy, they are entirely out of the question. If this held good with respect to the new Colleges, was he not prepared to do away with the system entirely? The continuance of the system in Trinity College, was, in fact, stating that the Protestants were the only fitting persons to teach chemistry, botany, anatomy, logic, oratory, and all other branches of art, and science, and literature. A short time ago, he found the following advertisement in a newspaper, reporting a vacant professorship in Trinity College:— Trinity College, Dublin—Pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 40 Geo. III., notice is hereby given, that the professorship of chemistry in Trinity College, Dublin, will become vacant on the 16th of May next, and that on Saturday, the 27th of May, the Provost and senior Fellows, at the board-room of Trinity College, will proceed to elect a professor of chemistry. The emoluments of this professorship consist of a sum of 200l. paid annually by the College, and of four guineas' fee paid by each person attending the professor's lectures. Under the provisions of said Act of Parliament, said professorship is open to Protestants of all nations, provided they shall have taken medical degrees, or shall have obtained a license to practise from the College of Physicians, in consequence of a testimonium under the seal of Trinity College. The professorship was open to the Protestants of all nations, but it was shut to the Catholics of Ireland. It must be in the recollection of the House that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, on a recent occasion, passed a high but a just eulogium on the attainments of Professor Kane, who, he stated, was the first professor of chemistry in Ireland. Now, it so happened, that Professor Kane was ineligible to this professorship, which was open to Protestants of all nations. A Frenchman, or a German, or a Spaniard might be eligible, but these professorships were shut to the people of Ireland. If the penal laws were wrong, do not allow such restrictions as these to exist, but carry out the principle of the Act of 1793. It was the bounden duty of the House rather to extend inquiry into the College, after the case which he had stated. The right hon. Baronet, who apparently had more love for a precedent than a principle, could be furnished with a striking one on this point. A Commission had been appointed to inquire into the Scotch Universities—why not have one, then, to inquire into the Irish University? The right hon. Gentle- man said, that there were peculiarities in legislating for Ireland; but surely, that was no ground for resisting inquiry. If it could not be properly done by that House, why not submit it to Royal hands, and to a Sovereign who rivalled Elizabeth in all the high attainments of legislation, and was superior to her in all the softer attributes which adorned the woman, and under whose sway more had been done for Ireland than under all the Sovereigns before her? The hon. Member concluded by proposing the following Amendment:— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry to be made into the amount of the Revenues of Trinity College, Dublin, from rents of College lands, endowments and bequests, fees on matriculation, on taking degrees, and from every other source; also, into the manner in which that income is expended, the number of Senior and Junior Fellows, of Professors, Scholars, and all other Officers of the College, with the amount of salary and allowances to each of them; with a view to ascertain whether the income or funds at present applied solely to the benefit of Protestants in Trinity College, Dublin, might not be beneficially extended, so as to make Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters eligible, if otherwise qualified, to all Scholarships, and to all such Fellowships, Professorships, and other Offices in Trinity College, Dublin, as are not intended for ecclesiastical purposes, or immediately connected with ecclesiastical endowment.

Mr. Bellew

seconded the Motion. He said, a Catholic could not go through his studies at Oxford; he could go through his studies at Cambridge, but could not take a degree; at Dublin he could both study and take a degree. He could also vote for the Member of Parliament for the University. This was not included in the charter of Elizabeth. The hon. Member proceeded to draw a distinction between the systems pursued in the Universities of England, and that pursued in the University of Dublin. He maintained that so long as that system was to be continued, so long would exist that Protestant ascendancy which the Government appeared to think had gone by. He thought that there ought to be a second College united to Trinity College, forming together the University of Dublin.

Sir T. Fremantle

said, that when, on a former occasion, the hon. Member for Wycombe had brought forward a similar Motion to the present, he had considered it his duty to resist it; and he might at once say that he came, in the present instance, to the same conclusion at which he had then arrived. Since the former discussion, however, he had had the subject more under his consideration, and he had also considered what grounds there were for the House of Commons addressing the Crown upon the question; and, having listened with attention to the speech of the hon. Member, he had been unable to discover that the hon. Member had alleged any Parliamentary grounds whatever for the adoption of the course recommended. It appeared to him that the hon. Member had not been able to allege any specific abuse or misappropriation of the moneys of this University. But what were, in detail, the abuses of which the hon. Gentleman complained? In the first place, he said that a certain number of the Fellows had been allowed to marry. It was not for him to give an opinion if that indulgence which had been given to Trinity College had been rightly conceded, or not; but he might be permitted to remind the hon. Gentleman, that that concession was an arrangement which had been made but a very few years ago, and during the period when Lord Fortescue was the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—the previous Government having constantly refused to grant it—and he thought it was, therefore, rather hard on the part of the hon. Member to charge that as an abuse against the University, which had been done with the consent of the Government under which it took place, and against which he had never heard any complaint or remonstrance on the part of the people of Ireland. But the senior Fellows, said the hon. Member—and this was the head and front of their offence—enjoyed very large emoluments, amounting to between 2,000l. and 3,000l. a year. The hon. Member, indeed, did not say that he had any very accurate data to go upon in making this charge; but he (Sir T. Fremantle) thought that he ought, before he made such statements, to have had some better grounds for them than he appeared to have had. Now, if he mistook not, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) who represented the University of Dublin, had made a statement not very long ago upon this subject, and had observed that, after making every inquiry into the case, he was prepared to state that the incomes of the senior Fellows did not exceed 1,500l.—and that a considerable portion of that sum was derived from professorships held by them, and to which offices the discharge of important duties was attached. He would put it to the House whether 1,500l. a year was too large a sum for them to enjoy, when the laborious duties they had to perform were taken into consideration. But it was alleged that they also held professorships. Why, a better arrangement could not be made than that the Fellows should superintend the education of the University. They remained in the College, as it seemed to him, for that especial purpose. And this ought not to be made a ground of complaint against Trinity College, for the same took place in other Universities. With regard to the patronage of livings which they held, he was not sufficiently acquainted with the details to speak upon this point; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman made out a very good case on the subject. The hon. Gentleman stated that the proceeds of the College amounted to 50,000l.; but it appeared that the rents derived from the property of the College, amounted to only 21,000l., the remainder of the 50,000l. being derived from tuitions; but it was not fair to make the money obtained from the teaching of young men a ground of complaint against the College. The hon. Gentleman, and also the hon. Member for Louth said, that as long as Trinity College was maintained, they maintained Protestant ascendancy. But this had nothing to do with the administration of the funds of the College. Besides, hon. Gentlemen knew that Trinity College was as much open to Roman Catholics as it was to Protestants, for the purposes of education; and he was rejoiced to see that so many Roman Catholic Gentlemen looked back with satisfaction to the education which they received there. It might as well be said, that as long as they gave 26,000l. a year to Maynooth, from which Protestants were altogether excluded, that Roman Catholic ascendancy was maintained. He admitted that Parliament was competent to interfere, if any abuses or misappropriation of the public money, on the part of Trinity College, could be shown. But the hon. Gentleman had not made this a ground for his Motion. In 1818 and 1819, a Commission was appointed for the purpose of inquiring into all the schools of the United Kingdom; but the Universities were excluded from that inquiry. If they were now to allow this inquiry, it would be considered hard and offensive by Trinity College. It was true, as the hon. Gentleman stated, that a Commission was issued to inquire into the state of the Scotch Universities; but the circumstances were different, for there was at that time a grant of money from the public funds for those Universities, and, therefore, they were justly open to the cognizance of Parliament. There were, besides, irregularities and disputes in those Universities; and it was with the consent of the Universities themselves that the Government interfered. There was, therefore, no analogy between the two cases. The hon. Gentleman's Motion concluded by stating that it was made with the view of ascertaining whether the income and funds now solely applied for the benefit of Protestants might not also be applied for the benefit of Roman Catholics and Dissenters. But this was not a question which depended on the amount of revenue possessed by Trinity College. It was a question of law. The Court of Queen's Bench had already decided that the visitors could enter into the question, and give an opinion upon it. If the decision was against the gentleman who brought the case before the Court, it would be a subject for the interference of the Legislature. It could not be affected by the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He did not think the hon. Gentleman had laid any grounds for his Motion, and he should, therefore oppose it.

Mr. Redington

hoped that an Act would be passed on the subject, if the decision was against the person who brought the matter before the Courts in Dublin. With regard to the inquiring into the Scotch Universities, it was not confined to the money given by the State; and with respect to abuses, he was not quite clear that none existed in Trinity College. It was not fair to say that Trinity College was open to Roman Catholics, when they were excluded from all the prizes and rewards of industry and learning. The Roman Catholics of Ireland would not be satisfied till they were put on an equality with their Protestant fellow countrymen; and he thought this might be done with regard to the University of Dublin, by leaving all the professorships for the purposes of the Protestant religion in the hands of Protestants, and throwing open all other professorships to persons of all denominations. Roman Catholics could not hold any professorships at present, because they were obliged to take an oath to conform to the liturgy of the Church of Ireland.

Mr. George A. Hamilton

had certainly anticipated that the Motion of the hon. Member for High Wycombe would be resisted strenuously by Her Majesty's Government; and it was to him a cause of much satisfaction that he had not been mistaken in that anticipation. He had grounded his expectations upon the strong expressions which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech which he had made not very long ago, when resisting a similar Motion in reference to the English Universities. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion had stated that a Royal Commission of inquiry in such matters was generally adopted as an instrument of reform, where great abuses were known to exist, and not as a weapon which could be called into every day use, for the mere purpose of gratifying curiosity. The very fact of instituting a trial implied censure, and though the charge was disproved, the impression remained. Such being the language of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Oxford and Cambridge, he should certainly have felt surprised if different language or a different course had been taken with reference to the University of Dublin. He would take it upon himself to state, that there was no indisposition on the part of the Provost and Fellows of Dublin College, to afford to Her Majesty's Government any information which they might think proper to seek for any useful purpose that was consistent with the objects for which the University of Dublin was established, and which might equally be sought for in reference to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. But he had a right to consider the Motion before the House as a hostile Motion, originating with a hostile party, and with a design certainly not friendly to the University of Dublin. With regard to the object of the hon. Member, it was not concealed in his Motion that his real object was to confiscate a part of the property of the University, and to apply it to purposes different from those for which it was designed. And with regard to the hostile feelings of the hon. Member, what had been the language which that hon. Member had always used—what had been the language he had used that night, in reference to the University of Dublin? Why, the hon. Member had intimated that scarcely any men of distinction had been connected with that University. [Mr. Osborne had spoken of theologians.] But the one or two exceptions which the hon. Member had quoted, were not theologians. He had quoted, as the exceptions, Sir W. Hamilton and Professor M'Cullagh. At all events, not long ago, the hon. Member had asked, in somewhat contumelious terms, who ever heard of any eminent man being educated at Dublin College; and on another occasion he had urged it is a matter of reproach that the University of Dublin should be misrepresented, as he was pleased to say, by his right hon. Colleague and himself, neither of whom had been educated there, intimating that no person educated at that University could be found qualified to represent it. Certainly, when the hon. Member talked of never having heard of any eminent men who were educated in Dublin College, he felt that he had to argue with the hon. Member under some disadvantage. He was compelled to suppose that the hon. Member had never happened to hear that there existed within the last century a very distinguished prelate of the Irish Church, whose name was Jebb, distinguished as a scholar, distinguished as a divine, and distinguished also for his sound and practical knowledge of Ireland. It happened upon one occasion, in a speech in the House of Lords, which speech at the time caused no inconsiderable sensation, that this prelate adverted, amongst many other things, to the very matter referred to by the hon. Member; and in doing so, he used the following expressions, which might convey an answer to the hon. Member:— The University of Dublin, which in its earliest days produced Usher, the most profoundly learned offspring and ornament of the Reformation, and Loftus in oriental letters, rivalled only by his great coeval, Pocock; which afterwards sent forth to shine among the foremost of an Augustine age, Parnel, the chastest of our poets; Swift, the purest of our prose writers; and Berkeley, the first of our metaphysicians; Goldsmith, the most natural depictor of life and manners; Burke, the greatest philosopher and statesman of his own or any other age or country; Grattan, the eloquent asserter of his country's rights—the parent of Irish independence;"— and in later times he would remind the hon. Member that the erudition and learning of Dr. Hales and Archbishop Magee, and Dr. Graves and Dr. Miller, and the eloquence of Plunkett and North—[Sir R. Peel: Bushe and Curran.] Yes, Bushe and Curran. He only mentioned those whose names occurred to him at the moment. He would further add, that, however they might differ in politics, it must be a matter of pride to every one connected with Dublin College, that the transcendent eloquence and brilliant imagination of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Dungarvon, had been nurtured under the auspices of that University. Amongst those who are, or have been, in the present generation, more immediately connected with the University of Dublin, the House, he was sure, would recognise the names of Professor Lloyd, Professor M'Cullagh, who had been mentioned by the hon. Member, and to whom recently the Copley prize had been awarded by the Royal Society for his beautiful researches respecting light—Sir William Hamilton, the Astronomer Royal; Dr. Robinson, the astronomer at Armagh; Dr. Wall, well known to the right hon. Member for Dungarvon, [Mr. Sheil: Hear!]—and one of the most distinguished scholars of these times in the ancient oriental languages. He might appeal to an hon. Member whom he saw opposite, the Member for Kendal, whether these names, as well as many others whom he might enumerate, such as Professors Kane and Apjohn, were not well known and acknowledged by every man of science in Europe, as persons of whom Trinity College, Dublin, might justly be proud. And now with respect to theologians—he supposed the hon. Member would not deny that Bishop O'Brien was eminent as a theologian. Doctor O'Brien had been a Fellow; Doctor Elrington and Doctor Singer were at present connected with Dublin College. It would be unfair and invidious to institute a comparison between the Fellows of one University and those of another; but when the hon. Member spoke of the Fellows of Dublin College being unoccupied and not distinguished as authors, he must remind the House, that while in the two great English Universities, there were, as he believed, more than 900 Fellows—in Dublin there were but thirty, and of those thirty, the twenty-three junior Fellows were engaged in the education of a body of young men not much inferior in point of numbers to the undergraduates at either of the English Universities. He did not know the precise number of undergraduates at Oxford or Cambridge, but there was considerably more than 1,500 in Dublin College under the instruction of the twenty-three junior Fellows. With respect to the seven senior Fellows, he could assure the House these offices were anything but sinecures; in the first place, as the Board of the College, they had the whole direction and manage- ment and supervision of that great institution, and the estates and everything connected with it; in addition to which, most of them were Professors, and in that capacity had onerous duties to perform—and they had, further, the preparation for the fellowship examinations, which it must be obvious required a constant course of severe study. He would now say a very few words on the other subject to which the hon. Member had referred. The hon. Member had urged as a matter of reproach, that the Dublin University was represented in that House by two persons, neither of whom had been educated there. Now, as far as his right hon. Friend and Colleague was concerned, he must deny that this could justly be said to be the case. His right hon. Friend had gone through the whole course, or nearly the whole course, of his education at Dublin College; and although it was true that he had afterwards gone to Oxford for a short time, and taken his degree of A.B. there, substantially he had received his education in Dublin College. With regard to himself, he had to acknowledge that he was open to the reproach of the hon. Member; and he acknowledged he had felt it to be an objection to him. But, because he had been elected, it was by no means fair to raise the inference that there was any want of persons who had been educated in Dublin College eminently qualified, much better qualified than he was, to represent that University, so far as talents and collegiate attainments were concerned. He would say nothing of his right hon. Friend near him (the Attorney General for Ireland), further than this, that every one who knew that right hon. Gentleman, must know that in point of talents and acquirements he was eminently fitted to represent the University where he had graduated. Besides the Attorney General, he had had, as his competitor, a gentleman formerly a Fellow, now a Professor, in that University, Dr. Longfield, a gentleman whom he did not hesitate to acknowledge was greatly his superior in talents and academical acquirements, and who certainly would have represented the University with great ability. But the fact was, the constituency of the University of Dublin consisted now of nearly 2,000 persons—the resident gentry and clergy of Ireland, as well as the Fellows and scholars of the College—and it did happen that there were other considerations involved—the recollections, perhaps, he might say of former contests in which he had been engaged, and especially those for the city of Dublin, which had excited so much interest—had induced the constituency to prefer him (though he had not come forward of himself) to others far more distinguished for talents and acquirements, and in many respects much better qualified to represent the University of Dublin than himself. He should now proceed to notice the objections which had been made to the present constitution of Dublin University. The first of those objections was its Protestant character. Now, in reference to this, he was prepared to maintain that it was a Protestant institution, and founded for Protestant purposes and objects. Really, considering the time when it was founded, the circumstances of the country at that period, and the parties who had been principally instrumental in its foundation, he did not think that any hon. Member could argue seriously that it was not founded and designed for Protestant purposes. Could it be supposed that Queen Elizabeth at that time, and under the then circumstances of Ireland, could have contemplated anything but an institution for promoting the principles of the Reformation? Could it be supposed that Archbishop Loftus, and Usher, and Burleigh, in those times—or Bishop Bedell and Archbishop Laud, and Sir William Temple, and Jeremy Taylor, in later times—all of whom had been engaged in framing the constitution and statutes of the University, could have intended that it should have been placed under a mixed government of Protestants and Roman Catholics? The statutes of the University were in themselves quite clear upon that point; and those statutes were confirmed by the Act of Uniformity and several other Acts of Parliament to which he might refer. But while the character of the University was essentially Protestant in respect of its governing body, it was most tolerant and liberal in respect to the admission of students, and in affording to students every opportunity both of distinction and emolument that was consistent with the constitution of the University. He was aware that this subject had been referred to on former occasions; but he thought it right, notwithstanding, that the House should be again informed how the matter really was in those respects. In the first place, it should be understood that there was no test whatever on entrance, or with reference to any degree, except degrees in divinity; the Oath of Allegiance was all that was required on the taking of any degree, except divinity. And next, with respect to the honours and emoluments of the College, there were thirty sizarships, objects both of honour and advantage, open equally to Roman Catholics and Protestants; and no imputation of unfairness or partiality had ever been imputed to those who conducted the examinations of Dublin College. All the University honours at the term examinations, and the gold medals at the examination for degrees, were open equally to Roman Catholics and Protestants; so were the University degrees, except in divinity; so were the vice-chancellor's prizes—prizes in English, Latin, and Greek, prose and verse; the Primate's Hebrew prize, Law's mathematical prizes, the Berkeley gold medals, the prizes for modern languages; in history, the medical prizes, those in Biblical Greek, those in the Irish language, and which, for the last two years, had been gained by the Roman Catholics: the moderatorships, or highest honours in mathematics, classics, ethics, and logic; premiums in political economy, catechetical premiums, Hebrew premiums, the exhibitions (which were emoluments) from schools of the foundation of Erasmus Smith, at Drogheda, Ennis, Galway, and Tipperary; the royal scholarships, twenty-five in number, and from 50l. to 30l. in value, from the schools of Armagh, Dungannon, Enniskillen, and Middleton, and the two Lloyd exhibitions. These honours and emoluments were open to Roman Catholics, equally with Protestants, among the students in Dublin College. He would now come to the higher offices in the University; and he was enabled to state, that the following offices and professorships were open equally to Roman Catholics and Protestants:—the professorship of English law, the regius professorship of physic, the high office of astronomer royal, the professorship of French and German, of Italian and Spanish, of political economy, of civil engineering, the lectureship in natural history, the professorship of moral philosophy, and of the Irish language. With regard, however, to the two latter, although there was no rule to exclude Roman Catholics, yet he felt bound to say in candour, from their connexion with divinity students, it was not likely that the Board could feel warranted in appointing a Roman Catholic. His hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk had been kind enough to point his attention to the Act of Elizabeth, and to subsequent Acts, by which, as he thought, it was necessary that all professors should make a declaration of conformity to the Established Church. He, though he had not had the opportunity of examining the Statute Book since his hon. Friend had spoken, could not help thinking that these Acts must have been subsequently repealed. At all events, he felt sure they were obsolete, and that, in point of fact, no such declaration of conformity was exacted in the cases he had enumerated. If the House would bear with him for a short time longer, he would now enumerate the offices which were not open to Roman Catholics, and the reasons on account of which Roman Catholics were ineligible to those offices. He was sorry to trespass so long upon the indulgence of the House, but it was really important to the University he had the honour to represent that these matters should be clearly understood. The first office from which Roman Catholics were excluded, was the provostship. He thought it could bescarcely necessary for him to defend that exclusion. There was no one, he thought, in that House, whatever might be his religion, who could say that, considering the objects and constitution of the College, it would be at all consistent with the nature of that high office that it should be filled by any one but a member of the Established Church. Roman Catholics were rendered ineligible by the letters patent of Charles I., by the College statutes, by several Acts of Parliament, the Act of Uniformity, and the Act of 1793. The same arguments and reasons were applicable to the office of vice-provostship. The nature, also, of the office of the Fellows, their being engaged in the religious as well as general education of the Protestant students, appeared to him to justify and render necessary the exclusion of Roman Catholics in reference to the fellowships. It was expressly declared by the College statutes, that all Fellows, except three, should take priests' orders in the Established Church, clearly proving the object of those offices. By the College statutes, also, Roman Catholics were excluded expressly. The same Acts of Parliament, moreover, which applied to the provostships, applied to the fellowships. The professorships of divinity must obviously be confined to members of the Established Church. The professor of Greek, by the College statutes, must be one of the Fellows, and, as such, a Protestant. The professors on the foundation of Erasmus Smith—a private foundation—must be Fellows, and, as such, Protestants. The three University professorships of anatomy, chemistry, and botany, by the Act of the 25th George III., for establishing a school of physic, were open to Protestants of all countries; and of course, by inference, Roman Catholics were excluded. With regard to the scholarships, as the case was now pending, he could say nothing on the subject. The professor of civil law, by the King's letter of 1668, must be a Fellow. He had now, he believed, enumerated every honour, every office, and every emolument connected with the University of Dublin; he had stated what were, and what were not, open to Roman Catholics, and the reasons; and he trusted there would be no further misapprehension on the subject. But there was another matter of complaint urged against Trinity College, which he felt bound to notice. In a petition which had been presented to the House, signed by many most respectable individuals, and in the speech of the hon. Member, it had been imputed to that College that it was defective in many important branches of practical education. Now, in the first place, he must remind the House that a University was not intended to be a mere mechanics' institution, and that the higher branches of knowledge and science should occupy the highest places in a course of University education. But he thought, in practical matters, Trinity College might challenge a comparison with any other College in the Empire. He could state how matters were in this respect: an engineering school, which was well attended, had been established by the Board—lectures were given in that school by three of the Fellows, as also by Mr. Oldham and Dr. Apjohn, on the practical application of chemistry, mineralogy, and mechanics, to engineering—and they had placed Sir John Macneill at the head of that school, who afforded the class the best opportunities of a practical acquaintance with that subject. There was also a professorship of geology, recently held by a distinguished geologist, Mr. Phillips, whose removal from Dublin was a matter of great regret. There was a public course of lectures, as well as a private one, in that school. In botany there was an herbarium formed; an admirable collection was purchased, and Mr. Harvey, a well-known botanist, made curator; in zoology there was a museum open to the public, and Mr. Ball appointed director. He believed that the means which had been taken by Trinity College to advance the study of natural history were estimated by natural- ists in this country, and that he might appeal also on this subject to the hon. Member for Kendal. Then there was the magnetical observatory, under Professor Lloyd, established at great expense by the Board of Trinity College, in which, during the last six years, most important observations had been made, from which there could be no doubt interesting and valuable results would arise. There were also lectures in political economy, moral philosophy, and biblical Greek. He thought he had stated enough to prove that the promotion of study in practical matters was not neglected by the Fellows of Trinity College. He would, however, repeat, that they considered as paramount a certain progress in the usual University branches of classics and science, and that they therefore withheld certificates for attendances on these new courses, unless the students should have passed through the science and classical course of the first year. He was sorry to have occupied so much of the time of the House. He would resist the Motion of the hon. Member, because he could not but think that it was most inexpedient and unnecessary to subject gentlemen of the highest attainments, who had devoted themselves for many years to the education of youth, to the unpleasantness of an inquiry, as the hon. Member proposed, into the amount and items of their income. The House ought to recollect that these were men who, from their talents and acquirements, must certainly have risen in other professions to the highest eminence. The income of the senior Fellows had been stated at 2,000l. a year: this he believed to be an exaggeration. He had reason to suppose that 1,500l. was the highest emolument which any senior Fellow enjoyed in any capacity from the College. But even if the amount were 2,000l. a year, he should be sorry to think that there was any one who would grudge even that amount as the recompense for the successful cultivation of the highest talents, and for the devotion of twenty or thirty years to the education of the youth of Ireland. He further resisted the Motion, because he could see no reason why, if an inquiry were to be made into the revenues of Trinity College, Dublin, a similar inquiry should not be made into the revenues of Trinity College, Cambridge, and King's College, or any other College which had the reputation of being wealthy. No case of abuse had been made out. The hon. Member had been obliged to rest his case upon what he called the gigantic connubiality of the system in Dublin College. He would not enter now into the question of the expediency or inexpediency of permitting the Fellows to marry. That, however, was a Government question—not grounds for such an inquiry as was proposed. Many hon. Members had almost strained their consciences to support the Irish Colleges Bill. He would confess that he was one of them. He had supported it because he believed that education was wanted among the middle classes in Ireland; and he sincerely hoped and trusted the measure would have a salutary and happy effect upon the social condition of that country; but he warned Her Majesty's Government against attempting to carry further the principle of that measure. Its principle was scarcely upheld by any one—though the particular measure was thought justifiable under the peculiar circumstances of Ireland. But it was most essential it should be understood that the same principle was not to be applied to the other institutions. Great concessions had recently been made, and were still making, with the hope of conciliating the Catholics of Ireland. The conciliation that people hoped for would certainly be marred, and discord and distrust excited, if the Protestants were to see that each concession was made the ground of fresh aggression—and if, after institutions being created for the Roman Catholics of Ireland, which Protestants thought questionable in their mixed government and the character of their education, attempts were to be countenanced to apply a similar principle to institutions which the Protestants of Ireland looked upon as their own. After thanking the House for the patient attention with which he had been listened to, Mr. Hamilton concluded by expressing his intention of offering his most strenuous opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member for Wycombe.

Mr. Warburton

said, that the question before the House was not the number of great men which Trinity College had produced, but whether the objects for which the University had been established had been fully accomplished according to the purposes described in its charters. What were the purposes for which the College had been established? What were the circumstances under which the fellowships and scholarships were founded? They ought to consider those questions attentively, and whether they had been fully carried out, and, if not carried out, in what particulars they had been neglected. The object of the Motion of the hon. Member was to ascertain by a Commission, to be appointed by Her Majesty, if the objects for which the University was established had been carried into effect, and if the money which was appropriated to that purpose had been properly expended. The original objects seemed to be of a most comprehensive character — to teach the liberal arts; and it appeared from the original charter that at the period of its establishment the University was so fully adequate to the teaching of the inhabitants of Ireland, that teaching the liberal arts in any other institution in Ireland was considered wholly unnecessary. That was the nature of the original charter in 1592; but there was a subsequent charter of Charles I., in 1637, and in that charter it would appear, from the sums appropriated as stipends to the provost, Fellows, and scholars, that they possessed but small emoluments. The provost was by that charter allowed 100l. per annum, the seven senior Fellows were allowed 9l. 13s. 4d. each, and the four junior Fellows 3l. per annum. It was true that money was at that time of a different value from the present; but allowing for that difference, the emoluments of the provost and Fellows was at that time very much below what it was under the present system. They ought, therefore, to consider whether there were under the existing system a larger amount of profit and emolument given to the provost and Fellows than the amount which was intended to be given by that charter. In Elizabeth's time, the fellowships were established under a system calculated to encourage the acquisition of learning and the cultivation of the liberal arts, which purposes it was intended to accomplish by a rapid succession of Fellows. In Cambridge and Oxford the fellowships were rendered conducive to the encouragement of learning, by restrictions, in some cases, to a certain number of years, or by becoming vacated on the marriage of the person holding the fellowship, or his being appointed to a living beyond a certain amount of value. There was no sufficient reason why an inquiry should not be made into the amount of emolument which the Fellows in Trinity College received under the existing system, and into the regulations under which those fellowships were now held; and if it were ascertained that those regulations, and the emoluments of the fellowships, were not in accordance with the charter, then in that case the original regulations ought to be enforced, if they were found to be better calculated for the encouragement of learning and the cultivation of the liberal arts. It appeared by the charter of Charles I. that Fellows were not permitted to marry—that if any one contracted marriage during his fellowship, it should be vacated; and in 1811 the Fellows themselves, it appeared, agreed, as every one would be supposed to do who had read the charter of Charles I., that such was the meaning of the words of the charter. If this regulation were for the encouragement of learning, had they not a right to inquire as to why it had been departed from? In Trinity College, Dublin, and in Trinity College, Cambridge, from precisely the same premises, they arrived at the very opposite conclusions. In Trinity College, Cambridge, it was held that the rapid succession of fellowships, being held, as they were, for no longer than seven years after being obtained, unless the parties took holy orders, was conducive to the encouragement of learning within the University. In Trinity College, Dublin, somehow or other, those to whom the regulation of this matter was referred, were acting upon the very opposite principle. If this alone were the question to be raised before such a Commission, he thought it was but fit that a Royal Commission should be issued by Her Majesty in reference to it. Seeing that the practice of Trinity College, Dublin, was so opposed to the practice, in this respect, of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and that the general belief, in these latter, was, that the rapid succession of fellowships tended to give encouragement to learning at an early period of life, he must say that this subject alone deserved the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that, on this subject alone they should issue a Royal Commission for the purpose of inquiry. His hon. Friend had also made out sufficient grounds for the appointment, by the Government, of a Commission of Inquiry, in order to see whether or not the funds of the College had been diverted from their original purpose. And here too, when the College was open to students of the Catholic persuasion, who might choose to attend it, and where they might take degrees, it appeared to him that, considering the changes of time and circumstances, it was well deserving of inquiry, whether the impediments which now existed to conferring offices of emolument upon them could not be greatly re- moved and whether these offices could not be thrown open to a much greater extent than they were at present. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland said that the funds which supported Trinity College were not public but private funds. As to the case of Scotland, with regard to four out of the five Universities in that country, the original funds by which they were endowed, were funds granted to them by various Popes, who were in their day encouragers of learning. But the funds in this case, by which Trinity College, Dublin, was endowed, were not conferred upon it by Popes, but were derived from the property of the Earl of Desmond, and other great proprietors whose property was confiscated. The argument, therefore, that in the one case public property was made use of, and not in the other, fell to the ground. This property of Trinity College, Dublin, belonged to the Crown before it was conferred upon that College for public purposes. The funds for the support of Trinity College, Dublin, were, to all intents, as much public funds as if they were procured from the Consolidated Fund. In the case of this College, they had already the whole establishment, with its buildings, at their command; and they had every facility for opening it more widely to the Catholics than before; and he, therefore, thought that their best course would be—leaving to the Protestants their existing funds and the foundation, so far as they were strictly applicable to Protestant uses — to endow new fellowships and professorships, to which Catholics might be eligible, and have, equally with their Protestant brethren, a reward thus held out for their exertions. It was but right that the benefits of the education to be procured at the College should, in every respect, be more widely extended to the Roman Catholics; and to this end, the objectionable practices at variance with the intention of the founders of the College should be removed. He thought that there were good grounds in this case for inquiry, and he would, therefore, cheerfully vote with the hon. and gallant Member who moved for the Commission.

Sir R. H. Inglis

observed, that the hon. and gallant Officer who introduced this subject, appealed to him and claimed his vote, on the ground that in a former debate he had promised to support a Motion for a Commission of Inquiry in any case in which an abuse might be alleged and proved. Ad- mitting his words to have been correctly quoted, he still contended that they did not properly apply to the subject then before the House. An abuse, indeed, was alleged, but an abuse was not proved. The hon. and gallant Officer found only two things which he termed abuses, and which alone the most jealous scrutiny could discover in the history and present state of Trinity College: and these were, in the first place, that the income of the College was 50,000l. a year, and, secondly, that Fellows were legally allowed to marry. As to the first, it was not necessarily an abuse, even if the statement of fact were correct. But, in point of fact, when they analyzed the amount of income, as stated by the hon. Member for the University (Mr. Hamilton), it turned out that only 21,000l. of that income could be considered as the income of the University, as such, the remaining thousands being as completely the personal earnings of the individual Fellows and others, as were the earnings of any man in a particular profession or calling in the world. It was as unreasonable to include the income derived from their pupils in the aggregate emoluments of the College, as it would be to include the fees of Dr. Chambers, or Sir Benjamin Brodie, or any other of the eminent men connected with the London Colleges of Physicians or of Surgeons, in the aggregate income of those institutions. The income of professors should not, therefore, be regarded as an abuse or grievance, which warranted the issue of a Royal Commission. The hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Warburton) laid particular stress upon the other point—the marriage of the Fellows. It was not for him (Sir R. H. Inglis) to state now, as a general proposition, that he would or that he would not defend the introduction of such a system into the College. He was, however, at liberty to consider it as a fact before the House. But did not the fact itself as it stood, even on the hon. Gentleman's own showing, prove that if such a system were wrong, it could be remedied by the same authority as permitted it to exist? The celibacy of the Fellows was first prescribed by the Sovereign and visitors, and afterwards relaxed by the same authority. In 1811, the obligation to celibacy was again restored, and recently relaxed; and if it were advisable to restore again the original obligation to celibacy, the Crown might effect that without a formal visitatorial inquiry. The hon. and gallant Officer stated that Trinity College was founded on the site of the Monastery of Allhallows, and endowed from the lands of the Earl of Desmond. That was an error of memory; for the Monastery of Allhallows was alienated by Henry VIII. to the Mayor and citizens of Dublin; and it was not till half a century afterwards that it was made the site of the present University. And under what circumstances was the University founded? Adam Loftus, the Archbishop of Dublin, applied to the citizens of Dublin, and told them what advantage it would be to themselves and their children, and "how many stories high it would raise the foundations of their fortunes" — for that was his language—if they would make a voluntary grant of the foundation of Allhallows Monastery, for the purpose of raising thereon his new College and University. Stimulated by his exhortations they made the grant; but so far from the College having been built by the plunder token from Roman Catholic proprietors, the Lord Deputy and Lords of the Council sent letters to every barony in Ireland, urging them to contribute to the erection of the College. And such was their confidence in the way in which that appeal would be met, that in a few days after the issue of those letters, the first stone of the College was laid—he (Sir R. Inglis) thought it was in March, 1594—and such was the liberality of the people of Ireland, that in less than two years from the laying of the first stone, students were admitted. This College was as purely a Protestant institution as the most decided advocate of the cause of Protestantism could desire. It was said by the hon. Member for Kendal that in the charter itself there was no reference to the word Protestant. That was true; but could any one doubt whether Queen Elizabeth had any other object in view in founding that College than the promotion of the Protestant faith? The charter was to be interpreted by the state of the law and the state of public opinion at the time. The College was essentially Protestant, and especially designed for the instruction of the priests of the Established Church. But the hon. Member for Kendal said—"You are inconsistent—you promote the visitation of the Colleges in Scotland, and why do you not promote a visitation of the University in Ireland?" His answer was—prove your abuse before you enforce any process for its correction. The Universities in Scotland never had since the Revolution any authority represented in England by what was called a visitor—there was no intermediate visitor. In England the Archbishop of Canterbury was the visitor of one College, the Earl of Pembroke of another, and the Bishop of Winchester of others; but there were not more than half a dozen Colleges of which the Crown was the direct visitor. In Ireland there was no intermediate visitor. Therefore, in Scotland, if any improvement could be suggested, it was a matter for consideration whether the Crown should be advised to issue a Commission to inquire into the fact, and suggest an appropriate remedy. But in Ireland there was a visitor exactly in the same relation to the University as the visitors of the Colleges of Oxford or Cambridge; and, therefore, the analogy of the hon. Member for Kendal did not at all apply to the case more immediately under discussion. On the whole, he saw no proof of any abuse, to justify any interference on the part of the Crown in the administration of private funds, or even of public funds confided to private hands. He should therefore oppose the Motion.

Mr. Hume

was sorry to see that this Motion encountered the opposition of the Government. Considering that their policy during the whole of the present Session had been, or appeared to be, guided by a sincere desire to conciliate the people of Ireland, he thought that, on this occasion, they were but throwing away a good opportunity of so doing, as this would have been one means of succeeding in their object. In reference to the charter of the College, the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) said that mere words were of little importance; but were the words in favour of the views of the hon. Baronet, he would be the last person to say so. The hon. Baronet tried to justify the present exclusive system pursued in Dublin by the spirit of the charter; but that document did not bear out the hon. Baronet's conclusion. On that ground, if on no other, they should act fairly and liberally. He considered, that, even if the College had been instituted to exclude all classes but one class, the time had now come when, as a public institution, they should consider whether its constitution was fit and proper, and whether the time had not now arrived when that constitution should be changed. That was his view of the matter. It was said, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member who moved for this inquiry, that this was not the time for such a Motion, But, surely, it was a proper time to bring forward such a Motion, when Her Majesty's Government had brought forward a measure for collegiate education in Ireland. The object of his hon. Friend in now making the Motion, was, that they should first see how the assets and funds already applied to the purposes of education in Ireland, were disposed of. Was not that a reasonable demand? Ireland should have her full share of the benefits of academic education, and it was upon that ground that he supported the measure of Her Majesty's Government; but did he not act right in asking, at the same time, for an account of the appropriation of the funds already existing and applied? Nor was this Motion suddenly brought forward. His hon. Friend gave notice of it almost on the very first day on which the Irish Colleges Bill came before the House, and only consented to postpone it from time to time to meet the convenience of Ministers. They should give the Motion the same effect now, as if it had been brought forward before. It was unreasonable on the part of the Government to call upon the House to vote away money for extending academic education in Ireland, without holding themselves ready to give an account of how the present funds were appropriated. A Commission had been issued in the case of the Scotch Universities; but it was contended that that was no precedent. He regarded it as a precedent directly in point. He was himself the person who applied for that Commission, and moved for it when application was made for funds to rebuild Marischal College, Aberdeen. The case now, with respect to Ireland was similar. In the one case, as in the other, there was an application for money; and in the one case, as in the other, should inquiry be made. As long as the exclusive system continued in Ireland—as long as the Protestant party were treated as a separate and a superior class, the people of Ireland never would be, and never ought to be contented. And, if there was an exclusion against the Roman Catholics being admitted to these Colleges, it ought to be removed now. The policy of the Government demanded that it should be removed; for their object was to tranquillize and do justice to Ireland, and unless perfect equality were established, that would be impossible.

Mr. Lefroy

would oppose the Motion, believing that its object was to open the emoluments of Trinity College, not only to the different religions in Ireland, but to all religions. The Statutes to which the hon. Member, for Kendal had referred, confined, as explicitly as words could, the emoluments of the University of Dublin to members of the Established Church, and enjoined that every person taking orders, or being promoted to any degree of learning, should take the Oath of Supremacy. The Statute of Charles II. also excluded Roman Catholics, not only from fellowships and scholarships, but even from the University itself. He thought it most unreasonable that because they supported a grant for general education in Ireland, they should be called upon to interfere with the revenues of this University — to interfere with property that had been granted for merely Protestant purposes, and for the support of the Protestant religion in that country. Under all the circumstances of the case, it appeared to him that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman had not been supported by argument at the other side of the House. For himself, he must say that he believed they were bound to support the College of Dublin in all its rights and in all its property. It had not been shown that they possessed any excess of property—it had not been shown any abuse had taken place in this University. If, then, under such circumstances, they interfered with the property of this University, there would be no security for any ecclesiastical property whatever. For these reasons, he gave his decided opposition to this Motion.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

rose to support the Motion. The hon. Members who had defended Trinity College had not displayed much force in their arguments. It was said by the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat, that the Statute of Elizabeth prevented persons of Roman Catholic opinions holding offices in this University. Now he thought that there was some mistake in this, because if Roman Catholics were excluded by the Statute of Elizabeth, why would such pains have been taken to exclude them by the Statute of Charles I., which passed so many years afterwards? He now came to the question of the property of the College. He must say on this point, that he did not think that the opposition to this Motion of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin was well founded; for he could not see what interest the University had in keeping the public in ignorance of the amount of its revenues. What objection there could be to make the public acquainted with the average amount of those revenues, he was totally at a loss to understand. He admitted that there might be a distinction made between the fees of tutors and the fees received as College fees; but still there ought to be no objection to state the amount of these revenues. Well, then, he would now turn to what he considered of greater importance—the religious question involved in this Motion. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin, in enumerating the brilliant men which that University had produced, had mentioned the name of Professor Kane: now, was it not strange that the University was so constituted that there were no means to enable that eminent man to live within the University? It was seventeen years since the Act of Roman Catholic Emancipation had passed, and some means ought to be found for putting an end to this system of exclusion. It was lamentable to see a professorship of this kind open to professors of all nations, and that Roman Catholics alone were excluded. Aliens in blood were admissible, but aliens in religion were not. He hoped that they would have some further expression of the principles on which the Government were prepared to act in this instance. They had already seen their inconsistency in endeavouring to enforce two distinct principles with respect to education in Scotland and in Ireland. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin had alluded to him (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) amongst others as having been educated in the University of Dublin. He confessed he looked back with pleasure to that circumstance, as having enabled him to form very valued connexions; but this did not blind him to the faults of that University. He considered that no system of education in Ireland would ever be satisfactory until that University was opened to the Irish people. He had supported the early stages of the Government Bill, on the ground that he was an advocate for a system of mixed education. He was anxious that the youth of Ireland, of all persuasions, should be brought up together, proper care being taken to guard their faith and morals—learning secular education together, and forming those future friendships which would be the best means of putting an end to religious discord in that country. But he contended that there could be no successful system of mixed education unless the Dublin University were thrown open equally to all classes — and until the advantages and emoluments of the professorships ceased to be confined to a favoured class. Although they might establish new Colleges, the feeling of the country would for a long time be against them, and the established University would be preferred. The hon. Member had alluded to the admission of Roman Catholics as sizars; but he feared that in many instances Roman Catholics who had been admitted as sizars had conformed to the Protestant Church. In supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend, he begged to say that he did so in no hostile spirit to the University of Dublin; for which, with all that he considered to be its faults, he entertained those feelings which it was natural he should entertain to the place where he received the greater portion of his education. He wished that all religious distinctions with respect to education in Ireland should be done away with, and that could not be the case unless all classes were put on an equal footing with respect to the honours and emoluments of this University. For these reasons he supported the Motion.

Mr. Shaw

had but little to add to the excellent speech of his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Hamilton); but, in consequence of some observations which had since been made, as well as some of the remarks with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Osborne) had introduced the Amendment, he (Mr. Shaw) would beg the attention of the House for a few minutes. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had borne testimony to the willingness of the authorities in Trinity College to give information, when it was sought in a friendly spirit; as they had proved by consenting to a return within the last week, of the reports, valuations, and surveys of their estates, as made by their officer, Mr. Collis, which had been moved for in that spirit of friendliness by a tenant of their own—the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. O'Connell). But the present was a hostile and invidious Motion, with the avowed object of alienating the property of the University of Dublin to purposes the very opposite of those for which it was founded. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Osborne) had complained that he had described the property in question as the private property of Trinity College, Dublin: he certainly had done so. It was the private property of a public body, held, no doubt, on a public trust; and that body was liable to account for any breach of that trust; but where no abuse had even been alleged, much less attempted to be proved, he demurred to the jurisdiction of that House. The University of Dublin received no grant from the House, and was not in that respect amenable to their control. At the same time, the heads of that institution had no motive or desire for concealment; and to the Crown, either through its visitors, which would be the regular course, or even to the responsible Ministers of the Crown, the College was ready to afford all reasonable information respecting its income and expenditure, and the entire management of its affairs. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Osborne) boasted that he would not be deterred from his attack on the funds of the University by what he termed the cuckoo cry, that "the College had been founded by a Protestant Queen, endowed with Protestant money, and was for Protestant purposes." Neither would he—let him tell the hon. Gentleman—be deterred by the hon. Gentleman calling it a cuckoo cry, from repeating the simple truth, which could not be too often told—that the University of Dublin was founded by a Protestant Queen, endowed with the money of Protestants, and for purposes essentially Protestant—the principal of them being to provide a learned and efficient body of men for the ministry of the reformed faith, as by law established in Ireland. The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Morgan J. O'Connell) had been very hasty in contradicting his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Lefroy), when his hon. Friend stated, that the Irish Parliament had passed an Act in the 2nd of Elizabeth, excluding from the University all persons who held the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy. He had since got the volume of the Irish Statutes from the library. His hon. Friend had been quite correct, and he would read the provision to the House; it was from the 2nd Elizabeth, cap. 1, sec. 10— All persons which shall be preferred to any degree of learning in any university that hereafter shall be within this realm, shall, before being preferred to such degree, take the said Oath of Supremacy. Why! the legitimacy of Queen Elizabeth was not at that time acknowledged by the Roman Catholics; and, no one who knew anything of the history of those times required to be told that the whole policy then was to exclude Roman Catholics. So, in fact, the constitution of Trinity College continued until the year 1793, And since then, for all the purposes of education and degrees, the studies and honours of the University were as open to Roman Catholics as to Protestants. That fact had been studiously kept out of sight by hon. Gentlemen opposite in these debates; and there were many Members probably on both sides of the House who thought that this was more a benefit in theory, than practically enjoyed by the Roman Catholics of Ireland. But the fact was, that they availed themselves of that privilege in the full proportion of their numbers in the educated classes in Ireland; and many hon. Members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, who had taken part in those debates—the right hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Sheil), the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Wyse), the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. M. J. O'Connell), and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Bellew)—had been educated at the University of Dublin. He confessed that he thought it but a bad return of those hon. Gentlemen, and those Roman Catholics who had derived the full advantages of a university education in Trinity College, who now joined in endeavouring to subvert its foundation; and, although he did not desire to see the system altered at Dublin, he could not be suprised if the conduct of the Irish Roman Catholics suggested some caution to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, in taking the first step, and admitting to degrees—the great boon now sought from them—the Dissenters in this country, when they witnessed to what unreasonable demands the same concession had led in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Osborne) had again attacked him that night for being necessarily ignorant of the affairs of Dublin College, because he had not graduated there; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman professed to instruct him on the subject. Now, he was sorry to be obliged to speak of himself, but the hon. Gentleman forced him to it; and he must therefore beg for one moment to compare the means of a knowledge of the affairs of the University of Dublin possessed by himself and by the hon. and gallant Member. It was true that he had not taken his bachelor's degree at Dublin—but he had first studied for three years in the immediate vicinity of Dublin College, and under very distinguished members of that body, for the entrance course—he then entered the University, and went through a year and a half of the undergraduate course. For reasons of a purely private nature with which he need not trouble the House, he then entered ad eundem at Oxford, and took a Bachelor of Arts degree; but he had since taken the degrees of both Master in Arts and Doctor of Laws in the University of Dublin—besides which, he had all his life resided in the neighbourhood of the University—he had lived in the same House with four of his brothers while they were graduating there, and since had four of his own sons studying under private tutors in the University, and one of them was a graduate. Under these circumstances, he did venture to think that he was likely to know as much of the system and practice of that University as the hon. and gallant Member, who could have had but a sort of cantering acquaintance with the neighbourhood of Dublin for a very few years, as military aide-de-camp to the Lord Lieutenant. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then spoke of some gigantic connubiality—was that the expression? [Mr. Osborne: A gigantic scheme of academical connubiality!] Well; but really it was rather ungracious of the hon. and gallant Gentleman so to inveigh against Irish connubiality; when he should recollect that almost his only pretence for interfering in Irish matters at all was his own recent connubial connexion with that country. But, to be serious, he had not approved of that Statute, procured by Lord Fortescue, which he believed had been refused by his right hon. Friend the present First Minister of the Crown—[Sir R. Peel: Hear!]—entirely repealing the Statute of celibacy, although he thought some relaxation of it was desirable. And as regarded the incomes and duties of the Fellows of Trinity College, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Osborne) must excuse him for saying, that he (Mr. Osborne) had betrayed the most remarkable ignorance. First, he had stated the property of the College to be above 50,000l. a year. The fact was—deducting what could not with propriety be charged, the professional fees of the tutors for pupils—the whole yearly income of the College was as nearly as possible the same as that House had voted that Session as the future annual income of the College of Maynooth. The junior Fellows did not receive more than about 300l. a year, besides what they derived from the payments of their pupils; and the incomes of the senior Fellows, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had spoken of as nearly 3,000l. a year each, he would state to the House, from an authentic paper which he was authorized to read, and which was as follows:— A senior Fellow's income fluctuates a good deal—being made up of various items. The salary of a senior fellowship is 100l. a year Irish—92l. The remainder depends on renewal fines, and on certain fees, varying with the number of students on the College books, and with the number that take degrees. The income from renewal fines is about 800l. one year with another; and the fees from students and from degrees may be calculated at about 300l., so that 1,200l. will be as nearly as possible the value of a senior fellowship. This is, of course, exclusive of offices. If a senior Fellow also holds a College or University office (such as proctor, senior lecturer, librarian, bursar, &c), he, of course, has a salary belonging to that office; and I do not think it is fair to add this to the income of his fellowship. However, if you do so—taking the average of all the offices which a senior Fellow can hold, and adding this to the above, the greatest value that can be assigned to a senior fellowship will be 1,500l. The greatest mis-statement of all was with reference to the duties of the Fellows. The hon. and gallant Member stated that they were very light. The very contrary was notoriously the fact; and the general complaint had been, that the duties were too onerous, and the Fellows not numerous enough to discharge them. The senior Fellows, seven in number, who attain that post after an average of thirty years as junior Fellows, and after having devoted the best part of their lives to the service of the College, have committed to them the entire superintendence and control of the discipline and conduct of the University; besides that, they are sole examiners at the annual public fellowship examinations; and he had before stated in the House, that he had himself heard that eminent man—the late Archbishop Magee—state, that while he was a senior Fellow it took him six months' hard reading each year to prepare himself as examiner for that examination. Then, the junior Fellows were constantly and actively engaged in the instruction of the students; and in addition to their ordinary duties in that respect, they had distributed amongst them the class of divinity students, which amounted to about one hundred yearly, whom they had frequently to lecture in their own rooms; and the divinity course at Dublin, he did not hesitate to say, was much stricter and more diligently enforced than at either of the English Universities. This both answered the objection, that divinity was not made a leading object of study at the University, and was a further proof of the necessity that the main body of the Fellows should be Protestant divines. There was, no doubt, a difference of system between the fellowships of the English and Dublin Universities—each, perhaps, having its own peculiar advantages. In England, the fellowships were much more numerous, and of less emolument, many of the Fellows being non-resident, and holding livings with their fellowships. Neither was allowable at Dublin—every Fellow was resident, and actively engaged in collegiate duties, and if he accepted a living he must resign his fellowship. The English system afforded more of what was termed learned leisure—gave greater opportunity for the pursuit of general science and literature, and consequently produced a greater number of authors; but the Irish, beyond doubt, must insure a higher class of general instructors for the student, and held out a premium for men of the highest talents and attainments to devote their whole energies and lives—first, to obtaining a fellowship, which is open to public competition; then, as junior Fellows, to the education of the students; and afterwards, if they reached the board, to the important duties he had described as belonging to the senior Fellows. Each system had been found to work well in its own sphere; and it would, probably, be dangerous to alter either, without the most serious consideration. That was, however, a question quite distinct from that then proposed to the House for opening the foundation and governing body of the University to Roman Catholics; a proposition which he would conclude by repeating never could be agreed to without a gross violation of the express intention of the founders of the University—shaking the stability of all the sacred and civil institutions in both countries, and perilling the rights of property in every part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Sheil

Sir, the Motion immediately before the House is an Amendment to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet opposite. I wish to avoid making two speeches upon the two subjects—one on the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and the other upon the third reading of the Bill. In the first instance, then, I will advert with great brevity to the first point under consideration; then, with equal brevity, to the Bill itself. I coincide with my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. M. J. O'Connell), in thinking that education in Ireland should be mixed—I mean secular education. We must in manhood associate in every walk of life—the Catholic and the Protestant merchant must place in each other that entire reliance which is the foundation of all mercantile transactions—to the Protestant and Catholic solicitor, to the Catholic and Protestant advocate, men differing from them in religious opinions, entrust fortunes, life, and honour. At the Bar, where our faculties are in collision, and our feelings are in contact, our forensic brotherhood is not interrupted by theological discriminations; in the noblest of all professions—in the Army, the Catholic and the Protestant Irishmen are comrades, and are attached by a devoted friendship; they stand together in the same field of fight; they scale the same battery, they advance in the same forlorn hope, and—to use a fine expression of the great poet whose remains the First Minister of the Crown lately deposited hard by—from the "deathbed of fame they look proudly to heaven together." And if thus, in our maturer years, we are to live and to die together, shall we be kept apart, in the morning of life, in its freshest and brightest hours, when all the affections are in blossom, when our friendships are pure and disinterested, and those attachments are formed which last through every vicissitude of fortune, and of which the memory survives the grave? But while I think that our altars should not stand as partitions between us, I do not think that from our altars we should turn with indifference away. Mixed secular education ought to be combined with separate religious instruction, which ought to have been provided by the State. You rely upon the system pursued by the National Board; but where there is no similitude, you ought not to resort for assimilation, A village school, where children are taught the mere rudiments of learning, does not afford a model for an academical institution, in which the eternity of matter, the existence of an external world, the origin of evil, and those subjects sue discussed, which are represented by the sublimest writer in our language as the themes of angelic controversy, and of more than angelic apprehension. Religious instruction is peculiarly required by the boy who leaves his home, who is no longer under the guardianship of that best of all sentinels, a father's and a mother's love—who cannot take the penates, the household angels, along with him to a boarding-house in Galway or in Cork. He is encompassed by temptation — his temperament is undergoing the process of perilous expansion. To him a little learning is peculiarly dangerous: it is in the shallows, and amidst the foam of tumultuous passion, that faith goes to pieces. How often have I seen a precocious smatterer in metaphysics rush with a presumptuous familiarity into subjects from which, as we grow older and wiser, we turn as we would from unearthly visitants, that— Shake our dispositions With thoughts beyond the reaches of our souls! Against these evils, of which the likelihood is not imaginary, it is your duty to guard. You ought to locate in your Colleges a Protestant and a Catholic ecclesiastic, pious, learned, and persuasive, by whom the great tenets of Christianity might be enforced, by whom the New Testament—in whose moral injunctions we all concur—in whose dogmas we ought to have no acrimonious difference—should be read and expounded according to the interpretations of their respective churches—whose eloquence should charm, whose example should allure, and by whom the minds of their young spirits should be elevated to the political contemplation of those subjects, in comparison with which every object, of an interest merely human, dwindles into evanescent diminution. I do not wish for a chair of divinity—I do not ask for rival theatres of theological disputation—I want a Catholic priest to say prayers for Catholics, and a Protestant priest to say prayers for Protestants. You have made no provision for any religious worship, and I am sure that you are wrong. You leave pious individuals to endow—why don't you endow yourselves? Why pay for geology and not for Christianity? But, said the Home Secretary, who is much more skilled in escaping from an argument than in refuting it, if we endow "the Catholic and the Pro- testant Church," we must endow the Unitarian, the Quaker, and the Jew. Would not this sophism forbid the payment of a chaplain in a workhouse, a prison, or a barrack? You perfectly well know that the students will consist of Catholics and of Protestants in the south of Ireland, and you ought particularly to adapt your measures to the existing state of facts, instead of resorting to a remote possibility as the basis of your legislation. My conviction is, that you are influenced by an apprehension of exciting the prejudices of the people of this country. In governing Ireland there is nothing which you should be so much afraid of as of fear; and as for keeping up distempered despotism a bad audacity would be needful, so for the purposes of true conciliation, courage is beyond all else required. You ought to have availed yourselves with eagerness of the entreaty of the Catholic bishops. You have done nothing in accommodating this measure to the Irish Catholic bishops; and as they are a body possessed of an almost paramount influence, you have committed a grievous fault in this regard. I presume that your measure has a political object; if so, you have omitted the means by which that object is to be attained. This brings me to the consideration of the course you have adopted with regard to the professors. You think that the Catholic bishops were unreasonable in asking that the professors of metaphysics, of geology, and of anatomy, should be Catholics. I stop not to suggest that you do not think it at all monstrous that all the Fellows and all the professors in Trinity College should be Protestants. The professor of anatomy must be a Protestant. You will admit Catholic subjects without stint, but by Protestant Dissenters they must be orthodoxically cut up. I stop not, however, to point out to you your own inconsistency, and think it better to tell you that you might have taken a middle course. If you had opened a field of competition, and provided that the professors should be selected by public examination, you would have obviated every objection. You would, besides, have given an opportunity to men of great talent and great knowledge who are now unknown to you, to give proof of those accomplisments and acquirements which are lost in the obscurity which it should have been your effort to disperse. You have reserved the right to appoint the professors, because you tell us that you are entitled to possess it. However anxious to avoid all discourtesy, I feel it my duty to tell you that I am at a loss to discover the peculiar claims which you possess to the confidence of the Irish people. I will not dwell upon what has been so often the subject of consideration, of your total misapplication of the patronage of the Crown. I will not advert to the events of such recent occurrence that you cannot imagine that by the people of Ireland they are already forgotten. But I will direct your attention to this fact, that there is not a single Catholic, directly or indirectly, connected with your Government. Sixteen years have elapsed since Catholic Emancipation—the man who carried it is at the head of the Government—there are 8,000,000 of Catholics in Ireland, and yet there is not a single Catholic in office. The Whigs did promote Catholics to office. The Attorney General of Ireland is a great functionary, and is consulted on every important measure. When the First Lord of the Treasury was Secretary for Ireland, he must have been in constant intercourse with the late Mr. Saurin, and must have often abided by his opinion. Under the Whig Government in Ireland, Sir Michael O'Loghlin and Chief Baron Woolfe, of each of whom I may justly say "Multis ille bonis flebilis occidit," held the office of Attorney General. Judge Ball, a gentleman who stood at the top of the Irish bar, and had the highest possible professional reputation; and Mr. Pigot, who is now in the fullest business, and is eminent for his great abilities, held that important office. These gentlemen were in contact with the Irish people, and perfectly understood their feelings and their interests; but you are destitute of all assistance, and you have not a single man about you who can direct you in any one question affecting the great body of the Catholics of Ireland. You may tell me that the Irish Catholics do not support you, and, therefore, you cannot promote them. But is not the fault your own. My hon. Friend the Member for the county of Lowth told you to-night the plain truth—that as long as you maintain Protestant ascendancy, so long no Roman Catholic of high spirit can support you You manifest your fatal policy in your exclusion of Catholics from Trinity College. I come to that question. Much has been said of the intentions of Queen Elizabeth, who, we are told, was an excellent Protestant. She was, I suppose— A very heathen in the carnal part, But yet a sad, good Christian at the heart. But we ought not to argue the charter of Elizabeth in the spirit in which Lady Hewley's will would be debated in the Rolls Court; and the Government by whom the Dissenters Chapel Bill was carried, ought not to indulge in any conjectures regarding the motives of Queen Elizabeth in granting a portion of the confiscated estates of the Earl of Desmond to the University of Dublin. It is clear that the charter does not state anything whatever of the Protestant purposes of the grant to Trinity College; and there is a remarkable passage in Lord Bacon's essay on the Queen's service in Ireland, from which it is to be inferred that Catholics were admitted to Trinity College; for Lord Bacon recommends the toleration of Catholics, and immediately after expatiates on the importance of "replenishing" Trinity College. He then goes on to say that the Irish should be treated with the utmost lenity—that no distinction between Englishmen and Irishmen should be made—and that the utmost attention should be paid to the education of the children of the Irish gentry. Lord Bacon said— It is true, what was anciently said, that a state is contained in two words—premium and pæna—and I am persuaded if a penny in the pound, which hath been spent in pæna, without fruit or emolument to this State, had been spent in præmio, that is in rewarding, things had never grown to this extremity. The keeping of the principal Irish persons in terms of contentment, and generally the carrying on an even course between the English and the Irish, as if they were one nation, is one of the best medicines of that State; for other points of contentment, the care and education of their children, and the like points of comfort and allurement, they are things which fall within every man's consideration. But, Sir, I own that I think this question is to be tried by a reference to public policy, by a regard to the great change which the country has undergone, and not by any presumption with respect to the motives of the original founders of Trinity College. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the University (Mr. Hamilton) entered into a detail of the great contributions to science and to literature which have been made by Trinity College. It was unnecessary. The names that shed lustre on Trinity College are multitudinous and bright; and, for my part, so far from being disposed to detract from the reputation of Trinity College, I am surprised that a mere handful of men, like the Protestants of Ireland, should have produced, through Dublin College, so many great and glorious men; and I conclude, that if the benefits of the University were extended to the entire people, if the entire mind of Ireland were brought into cultivation, it would be fertile of such noble and distinguished products. I consider the exclusion of Catholics from the lay fellowships and scholarships of Trinity College as the consummation of injustice. I yesterday inquired, from a friend of mine, who had been a scholar of Trinity College, what had been the extent of his emoluments; and he informed me that he had been for five years a scholar—that during the whole of that time he had his rooms and his commons free from all charge—that he received 10l. a year for the first two years, and 40l. a year for the last three years. From these great advantages Catholic industry and Catholic erudition are excluded. I shall mention another fact, for facts are better than expatiations. Mr. Mulcaley—for I have no hesitation in mentioning his name—resides in Trinity College, where he has evinced singular ability in acquiring and communicating knowledge. He is a first-rate mathematician, and obtained an honour equivalent to that of senior wrangler in Cambridge; six of the Fellows of the College are his pupils; he is a Catholic, and had the manliness and the virtue to resist all the base allurements with which Protestantism is propagated in Ireland; and for his adherence to the religion in which he was born, and means to die, to the scholarships and fellowships of the University all access has been denied him. As long as you shall keep Trinity College closed, I shall not set the slightest political value upon your three provincial Colleges, which will be stamped with all the characteristics of mediocrity. How dwarf and stunted will be the groves of your new academies, when compared with the rich luxuriance in which Trinity College will be enveloped! You will make the supremacy of Trinity College even more conspicuous by the inferiorities with which it will be surrounded. It would have been far better to have applied 18,000l. a year to the creation of new fellowships and chairs in Dublin College, to which men of all religious denominations would have been eligible. You would then have got value—Value in contentment, value in conciliation—for your money. That measure would have been large and comprehensive, and would have contributed to place Catholics and Protestants upon that level which, for the purposes of permanent pacification, is indispensably requisite. We insist upon equality, and you should not chide us for so insisting; for, in our place, you would nourish the feelings which it would be unworthy of us not to entertain. Not very long ago, in enforcing the policy upon which Ireland ought, and must at last be governed, I ventured to point to the great position occupied by the Prime Minister, and to say that he was placed upon such a moral height, that in looking on Ireland, he should take no narrow prospect; that nothing little should be discerned by him; that he should be superior to any party consideration; and that in contemplating great objects, he should be inspired by great motives. I will, for a moment, take the right hon. Gentleman down from that surpassing elevation, and instead of being a Prime Minister—instead of being an Englishman, nay, instead of being a Protestant, I will suppose him to have been born in that island which you have so long regarded as a mere provincial appurtenance to your vast dominion, and a professor of that religion which, for the purposes of degradation, was for centuries marked out. Suppose, then, that he were born, not an Englishman and a Protestant, but an Irishman and a Catholic, a native of that unfortunate country to which your fathers did such measureless wrong, but in which the sentiment of nationality never has been, and never will be, utterly extinguished; and furthermore, suppose that he, a member of that vast community of which he was so long the formidable, but always, I believe, the reluctant, and perhaps the remorseful antagonist; suppose he were a member of that community, whose growth, social, and political, and moral, since first he crossed the threshold of Dublin Castle, has been great beyond a parallel—that community by which obstacles once deemed insurmountable have been crossed, and by which, in its career of continued victory, the array of hostility that was marshalled against it has been so often scat- tered and swept away, of which acquisition of liberty has been followed by so rapid an augmentation of power; which in wealth, in intelligence, in organized determination, has made advances so prodigious; and the future progress of which is as much beyond doubt, as its past progress is beyond revocation. Suppose, I say, that he belonged to those millions—those Catholic millions, who call themselves the people of Ireland, and who to that designation have proved their title; suppose that he belonged to those eight millions, with whom so many attributes of power are associated, and that he was animated by the feelings with which the consciousness of power must needs be combined: and suppose (for I have not done with my hypothesis), that the First Minister of the greatest Empire in the world, at the head of an overwhelming Parliamentary majority, baffled and discomfited in his enterprises of coercion, were to announce and to proclaim that force in the government of Ireland was powerless—that by force agitation could not be put down — that trial by jury was of little or no avail — that conciliation must be resorted to — and furthermore, suppose that the Ministers by whom those acknowledgments had been made were to turn to him, and to ask, "what would content him?" To that interrogatory — to such an interrogatory — what would be his answer? "Equality." I'll dare be sworn, it would be equality—political, official, ecclesiastical, academical — in all regards, "equality." You know, in your heart, you know that nothing else would satisfy you; in your heart's core you know that nothing else will satisfy or ought to satisfy us; and, I tell you, at the close of this, the fifth Session of your Parliament, that if you shall persevere in with holding it, your Government will be a series of frustrations—your half measures—your homœopathic remedies, will but aggravate the national distemper. You will cast oil upon flames—you will but excite and inspirit agitation—and at last, by fatal delays, by ruinous procrastination, by uncertainly of purpose, by letting, "I dare not wait upon—I would"—you will bring the country to such a pass that an outbreak will be inevitable—an eruption of the popular passions will appal you; the might of England will then be put forth—you will establish what you will call peace, perhaps; but with tranquillity desolation will be associated; and you will convert one of the finest islands of the ocean into a solitude, in which, in the same grave the liberties, and the happiness, and all the hopes of one country, and the honour, and the virtue, and perhaps the greatness of the other, will be interred together.

Sir R. Peel

Sir, I trust the House will bear in mind what are the circumstances under which the right hon. Gentleman has made this impassioned appeal. What is the position in which we are now standing with respect to the question of Irish academical education, on which he says, to give satisfaction there must be perfect equality? As Minister of the Crown, I am speaking towards the close of a Session, in the course of which we have been prepared, in order to establish that equality, to run counter to the strong feelings—to the strong religious feelings—of the majority, I fear, of the people of this country. In order to do that which we believe to be consistent with justice—in order to do that which we hope will be acceptable to the Roman Catholics, we came forward with a proposition for the endowment, the liberal endowment, of that institution in which the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics of Ireland receive academical education. We attached no conditions whatever to the acceptance of that grant—we proposed no restrictions with which the most scrupulous and conscientious Roman Catholics could quarrel—we asked for no interference with their religious doctrines. In taking powers necessary for the government of that institution, where there could be a question about any interference with the doctrines or discipline of that Church, we committed that interference to Trustees, not appointed by the Crown, but elected by the free choice of the Roman Catholic bishops. To that institution we assigned a provision which was thought to be liberal, for the purpose of improving the edifice in which instruction was to be delivered. We made an annual provision for the purpose of improving the condition of those professors—men of learning, and, I believe, of great respectability, but heretofore miserably endowed, to whom the education of the Roman Catholic youth was entrusted. There was no question whatever about the amount of the grant. If we had had reason to believe that double the amount was necessary, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that no consideration of paltry economy, or even a fear of more inveterate opposition, should have deterred us from proposing it. The measure was accepted in Ireland in the spirit in which it was proposed. We held communications in regard to it with the Roman Catholic prelates—we had every reason to believe that, so far as the instruction of the Roman Catholic clergy was concerned, that measure would be received with perfect satisfaction, and with acknowledgments of gratitude. But we did not stop there. We wished to provide for the Roman Catholic youth of Ireland a secular education of the best description, and without stint. True, we have not appointed, by Act of Parliament, chaplains; but where is the difficulty in the way of the appointment of chaplains by the Roman Catholic bishops? The whole charge of the right hon. Gentleman is, that we have not endowed Roman Catholic chaplains. Now, is there in that any inequality? Have we permitted our natural prepossessions in favour of the Protestant Church, to give it in these new institutions any superiority? Not in the slightest degree. In these new institutions the principle of equality has been perfectly preserved. We have given the Catholics every facility for religious instruction. We have given them direct sanction and encouragement. We have admitted that secular instruction will be imperfect unless accompanied by religious instruction as its basis; but we have thought (it may be erroneously) that the best way of providing that religious instruction where there is so much jealousy of interference, was, to give every facility, but to call on parents interested in the moral culture of their children to provide the means, and to call on the respective Churches to give their aid in providing that education. The principle may be an erroneous one. It may be right that we should have endowed ministers of the respective creeds; but, at any rate, the principle of perfect equality has been preserved; and I must say, that it has been preserved for the first time. When I say "first time," I do not mean to apply those words in their common acceptation; but I mean to say, that it is unusual in any country where there is an Established Church to place on precisely the same footing ministers of creeds dissenting from that Church. Yet I hear to-night from the right hon. Gentleman, after all that has taken place in the course of the present Session, imputations on the Government, as if they had treated their Roman Catholic brethren with partiality and injustice. Why, for whom were these new Colleges intended? Who will derive benefit from them? In the north, the Presbyterians; in the south and the west, the Roman Catholics. You ask us to tie down the discrimination of the Government by an enactment. Do you think that the same spirit that presided over the foundation of those establishments will not induce the authors of the Bill to seek to found them on principles which shall be acceptable to the body for whom they are intended? Have we ever denied that the cordial co-operation of the Roman Catholics would be essential, almost, to their success? Do you think that we would lightly disregard any reasonable proposition which they should make? I refer now to the course which we pursued with respect to the Charitable Bequests Act; and I say that there was more real conciliation, more benefit derived from the conduct of the Executive in acting fairly, and unfettered by enactment, in carrying out that law, than if we had consented to your proposition, and had fettered ourselves by an enactment. I consider that true conciliation, and concert, and co-operation, are more likely to arise from the free action of the Executive Government in a friendly spirit, than from the introduction into laws of this kind of an enactment which leaves nothing for the discrimination of the Government. I maintain, then, that with regard to our conduct as to Maynooth, this is not the occasion when the right hon. Gentleman should tell us that the worst principle in our administration of Irish affairs was that we were afraid of fear. But I do not take this rhetorical display of the right hon. Gentleman as an indication of the real feelings of the Irish people. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say of the alienation of the Roman Catholics from the Government, I have very strong reason to believe, and I am proud to be able to state this to the House, that among the Roman Catholic laity of Ireland there is a strong feeling of approbation of the policy we have pursued, and a desire to support it. I was sorry to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because I know the use that will be made of it in this country. I know it will be said, "See what you have gained by your policy—see the effect of disregarding the fears and the opinions of your friends. What hope have you of making an impression on the Irish mind, when, after all you have done and all you have encountered, the leading Roman Catholic of the House of Commons gets up and tells you that unless you go ten times further, the Irish people will be guilty of insurrection?" Sir, those are not the feelings of the Irish people. We do believe that we have made an impression on the Irish mind—not a perfect one, I admit, but an impression. It is easy to say, "Why don't you remove at once all these causes of ill-feeling?" It is very easy for us to make speeches in the House of Commons, and overlook all the difficulties which must encompass and do encompass the course of any Government—whether the noble Lord opposite be at its head or myself in conducting Irish affairs. I have always felt, I always admitted, those difficulties; but notwithstanding the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I say to the people of England, "Persevere in the course you have adopted—disregard the angry speech which an eloquent man has made—depend on it that a course of justice, of forbearance, of indulgence, will make a proper impression, and you will, sooner or later, reap the fruits of such a policy." And, Sir, nothing deterred by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I am perfectly satisfied with the results of the policy we have adopted. Sir, I repeat that we have made those liberal allowances for Maynooth, and for the advancement of secular education in the west and south of Ireland; but we are not prepared to relinquish Trinity College, Dublin. That College is possessed of, I believe, a revenue of about 25,000l. a year, a less amount of independent revenue, as distinguished from that derived from fees for education, than that which has just been assigned to Maynooth; assigned permanently, so as to place it beyond the control of an annual grant, partly that it may no longer be the source of annual irritation and religious excitement, and partly that we might by so doing imply our confidence in the Roman Catholic body. We find that Trinity College, Dublin, is an institution where almost all the ministers of the Church of Ireland receive their education, founded by Queen Elizabeth, and intended, at its foundation, for the promotion of the interests of the Established Church; for although in the original charter of Queen Elizabeth there is no express reference to the disqualification of the Roman Catholics, nor any condition in terms expressive of a connexion between the College and the Protestant Establishment; yet if you look at the laws which were in force at the time when the institution was founded, and the proposals which immediately preceded it, when, I think, the Lord Deputy proposed that St. Patrick's or Christ's Church should be converted into a College, can you doubt that, whatever may be the words of the charter, or whatever may be the view entertained as to the moral and religious education, in intention and spirit it was meant to be a College in connexion with and for the promotion of the Protestant religion? At least for more than 200 years Trinity College has been practically in immediate connexion with the Established Church. And yet the right hon. Gentleman says we are violating the principle of equality because we don't open the scholarships and fellowships of Trinity College to the Roman Catholics. I will say nothing now as to the propriety of improving the system of education at Trinity College. I think that, with regard to all such institutions, if you maintain the objects for which they were originally founded, the more extensive you can make them, the better for their stability and credit, and for the public good. Sir, I wish that on both sides of the House we could take more comprehensive views than mere academical ones in discussing this question. I think it will be a great advantage to improve the education at Maynooth, and increase the means of secular education generally in the south and west of Ireland. I think that, abstractedly speaking, to do this will be to confer a benefit on the people of Ireland. But this I look for from this measure, that independently of the academical advantages it will confer, I do fondly trust it will be the foundation of an improved feeling between those who have hitherto been separated by religious differences. When thousands of petitions were brought up in this House, emanating, I admit, from the religious feeling of this country, when I saw those petitions brought up which indicated the Protestant feeling of this country, I was, I admit, proud to be able to state that the Protestants of Ireland did view the Members of Her Majesty's Government, generally speaking, in a different spirit, and with satisfaction, on account of their sympathy with the condition of their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. Indeed, I hardly believed it possible that the measures of the Government would have met with so little opposition on the part of the Protestant body. I believe also that the course which has been pursued has tended to improve the social relations between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics. I will take Galway, from which county I presented a petition. That is, perhaps, the most Roman Catholic county in Ireland, but comprising many Protestant Dissenters; but there has been at all times less acerbity of religious feeling there than in almost any other part of Ireland. There has been on the part of the higher classes a desire to live together in peace and amity, and their example has extended to the lower orders; and the consequence is, that there has been less of feud and animosity in Galway than any other part of Ireland. Sir, I presented a petition in favour of the measures of Government from that county, to which the names of Mr. Daly, Mr. St. George, and of other Protestants, who had the strongest feeling in favour of their own religion, but who expressly approved of the course Her Majesty's Government had taken. To that petition was also appended the name of the Roman Catholic warden of Galway; and ecclesiastics and laity came forward with their joint approval of the measure which the Government had submitted to this House. But if, after having endowed Maynooth and founded these Colleges, we had declared our intention of relinquishing Trinity College, Dublin also, do you suppose that the social harmony which prevails in Galway and other parts of Ireland would have been continued? Sir, I utterly deny the charge of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government have treated the Roman Catholic body on any other footing than that of equality, when we endow Maynooth and establish these Colleges, and at the same time maintain, for Trinity College that Protestant character which has been impressed on it for 200 years. With regard to the Amendment itself, it appears to me in its wording hardly worthy of the able speech which introduced it. It is more confused and unintelligible than might have been expected from the hon. Member. The object of the hon. Member seems to be to destroy the Protestant character of Trinity College; but the language in which he stated his wish is rather confused and unintelligible. He says, "and whether the funds may not be beneficially extended"—[Mr. Osborne: By an additional grant.] By an addition to the funds of the College; and by whom provided? How does the hon. Member reconcile this recommend- dation with what he said about our putting our fingers into the Consolidated Fund? Surely the hon. Gentleman must have been aware that the hon. Member for Montrose has left his place, or he would not have ventured such a suggestion. What has become of "the pool of Bethesda," into which all the lame and maimed institutions of Ireland were to be dipped, as he was pleased to describe the Consolidated Fund? It appears now that the hon. Member does not wish you to diminish the charge on the Consolidated Fund by applying the funds of Trinity College to the new institutions; but you are to charge the Consolidated Fund in order to increase the revenue of Trinity College. The inquiry is to be made "with a view to ascertain whether the income or funds at present applied solely to the benefit of Protestants in Trinity College, Dublin, might not be beneficially extended so as to make Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters eligible, if otherwise qualified, to all scholarships," &c. How can the extension of the funds make the Roman Catholics eligible? [Mr. Osborne was understood to say that he had not drawn up the Resolution.—Mr. Sheil: They are at the same time to be made eligible.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman claims the parentage of the Resolution. Has the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Osborne) the face to ask us to vote for a Resolution which I have shown to be inexplicable, and which when pressed for explanation he himself is obliged to disclaim? I had a great many other questions to ask as to the meaning of the Resolution; but, after the frank avowal of the hon. Gentleman that he is not the author of it, and that he cannot explain it, I will spare him the torture which I was about to inflict. I must say, however, that it shows how good a critic I am, that having heard the speech of the hon. Member, and admired it for its ability and lucid brevity, I ventured to say that the man who had made that speech could not possibly have drawn up the Amendment. With respect to the measure itself, and to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Sheil), the right hon. Gentleman referred to the part which I have taken in relation to Roman Catholics of Ireland. He has said that I for a long time offered opposition—not an intemperate opposition—to the claims of the Roman Catholics, and that I afterwards felt it to be my duty to bring forward a measure for a complete and unqualified removal of all the disabilities under which they laboured. He has done justice to the motives by which I was actuated. I was well aware of the sacrifice I must incur by taking that course. I was well aware that I must not only forfeit the representation of that University, to be the Representative of which was my chief pride, but that I must incur the risk of alienating friends in whose esteem and confidence I placed the utmost value. I took that course when I was convinced that my co-operation was indispensable to the success of that measure; and I assure the right hon. Gentleman now, that there is no sacrifice which I would not make—so much importance do I attach to the subject—there is no sacrifice, however great or however lasting, which I would not make, if, acting with justice towards Protestants and Roman Catholics, I could contribute to the establishment of social peace and harmony in the country to which he belongs.

Sir V. Blake

was understood to say that the petition from Galway, to which the right hon. Baronet had referred, was not signed by the Catholic warden of Galway, because there was no such individual.

Sir R. Peel

asked whether the hon. Baronet did not call upon him with a petition from Galway, stating that the petitioners were anxious that Galway should be one of the seats for the new Colleges?

Sir V. Blake

admitted that he called upon the right hon. Baronet to recommend that Galway should be one of those seats. The right hon. Baronet would probably recollect that, before the announcement of the intention of the Government to found these Colleges was made public, he took the opportunity of communicating to the right hon. Baronet certain measures by which great advantages would accrue to Ireland. [Sir Robert Peel: A ship canal!] Yes, and also from the establishment of Colleges, and he still hoped that Galway would have a University, although he confessed he did not now expect those advantages from any such institution which it would confer if it were based more on religion.

Colonel Sibthorp

said, he felt it his duty as a Protestant to oppose the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He admitted that the time might come when the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government might be as disposed to give up Trinity College, Dublin, as he was to bring forward the Maynooth Bill and other measures. Indeed, no course which the right hon. Baronet should adopt would surprise him. These things the right hon. Baronet did upon what he called the principle of expediency, but which he would call disgraceful subserviency. He had lost all confidence in the right hon. Baronet, who had abandoned all those measures to which he had promised to adhere. He would take his course as a sincere Protestant, leaving it to the right hon. Baronet to adopt principles half Roman Catholic, and which might be half Mahometan.

Lord John Russell

The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) has hardly treated fairly the argument of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sheil). My right hon. Friend, as a Roman Catholic, says, "Let us in Ireland have equality." A very fair object for any Roman Catholic and for any Irishman to look to. It was promised—solemnly promised at the Act of Union, and you have never denied—no party has ever denied—that equality is due to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. If that be your principle, so solemnly asserted, let us look with regard to any measure brought before the House, and see whether in respect to that measure equality is given to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. This is a question of academical education. I admit there are great merits in this Bill—great merits, as it tends to promote education in Ireland, and tends to give liberal encouragement to the means of instruction among the commercial and middle classes of that country. I think it has great merit in being entirely free from any religious test. I think that is a distinguishing feature of the Bill, which I am happy to acknowledge. But when I come to consider what will be the state of academical education in Ireland when this Bill has passed, comparing Roman Catholics with Protestants, the case will be this. With respect to clerical education, you may say that Trinity College is a place for the ecclesiastical education of Protestants; and that Maynooth is a place for the ecclesiastical education of Roman Catholics. So far there is an apparent equality. But when I come to consider the means for the general education of the higher classes in that country—I mean an education for the learned professions with a view to obtaining distinction in various pursuits and studies of a different nature—we then find what I believe to be the true description, as given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw), namely, that for the Roman Catholics you establish a certain number of Colleges suitable for the middle classes, which are open to all, and at which persons intending to devote themselves to commercial pursuits, to civil engineering, and professions of a similar nature, may obtain a good education; but with respect to a higher kind of education, you find that that is solely to be obtained in the University of Dublin, and that the University of Dublin is presided over by a body which is exclusively Protestant. Nay more, you find that even those scholarships which are intended for promoting the advancement of students in their future career, are confined in all cases to Protestants; and that with regard to professorships, such as chemistry and botany, Protestants only can be appointed to them. Here, at once, is not equality. You have not made a provision for giving to the Roman Catholics that which you have given to the Protestants. That inequality might be remedied in two ways. You might have a separate institution for Roman Catholics, and give that institution as rich an endowment as Trinity College possesses. That would be equality. But you do not adopt that course. I do not quarrel with you for that. But another way to remedy the inequality that exists is to open Trinity College, Dublin—all of it which is not of an ecclesiastical nature, but merely secular—to the Roman Catholics of that country. The right hon. Baronet has not therefore answered the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sheil) by comparing Maynooth with Trinity College, instead of stating, as is the fact, that Trinity College would still remain the only place where persons belonging to the higher classes can obtain collegiate degrees. This being the case, my right hon. Friend is perfectly justified in saying, that the Roman Catholics will not be satisfied Until real equality is obtained. That is the case with regard to academical education; and so it is with regard to every other object. The right hon. Baronet says, that there are other difficulties in the way. There are difficulties in the way of every Government, I am well aware. One of the difficulties which the present Government has to encounter is their former acts and conduct. But, if they were determined to do that which I think they ought to do, namely, to tell the people of England that Ireland will not, and ought not, to be satisfied without equality, and if they will work that proposition out, whether it be as regards academical education, or whether it be as regards ecclesiastical education, or whether it be as regards political or civil privileges, I think, all these difficulties would very soon vanish before their sight. The people of England would see the justice of that policy. They do not so easily see the justice of a proposition which comes piecemeal before them. They do not see the advantage of endowing Maynooth solely for the education of Catholic priests; they do not see the advantage of a system of education from which religion is totally excluded. These propositions coming singly before them do not strike them with the force that they would do, if you were to bring the whole condition of Ireland before this House and the country, and were to say that you are I determined to act according to the principles of justice. The right hon. Baronet finds fault with my right hon. Friend, because he is not satisfied, and because he is not prepared to go back to Ireland quite pleased, and willing to tell his constituents how kind and beneficent the English Parliament has been to them. But unless you can prove that your propositions are intended to comply with the promises made at the time of the Union; and unless, too, you can prove that the Roman Catholics of Ireland have had full justice done them, although they may, in respect to individual measures, say, "This is an advantageous measure, and may be a benefit for Ireland," yet they would not act with sincerity if they did not at the same time say, "But do not suppose that we shall be satisfied until perfect equality is established between Catholic and Protestant." With respect to the present, without confining myself to the words of the hon. Gentleman's proposition, I am quite willing, Sir, that the words contained in the Motion you are about to put, be left out, for the purpose of submitting some proposition for opening Trinity College to Roman Catholics. It is the only way left, after the manner in which these institutions have been determined upon by the Government. With regard to the Bill itself, I shall cheerfully give my vote for the third reading, although it is by no means a perfect measure, and although I still think it wants much to make it complete. But seeing its liberal character, and seeing that it is entirely free from all religious tests, and that you do not intend to inflict that injustice upon Ireland which you seem so resolutely determined to maintain in this country, I shall give it my support.

The House divided on the Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—Ayes 168; Noes 91: Majority 77.

List of theAYES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Damer, hon. Col.
A'Court, Capt.	Darby, G.
Acton, Col.	Denison, E. B.
Adderley, C. B.	Dick, Q.
Antrobus, E.	Dickinson, F. H.
Archdall, Capt. M.	Dodd, G.
Arkwright, G.	Douglas, Sir H.
Astell, W.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Baillie, Col.	Duncombe, hon. A.
Baird, W.	Duncombe, hon. O.
Balfour, J. M.	East, J. B.
Barkly, H.	Eastnor, Visct.
Baring, T.	Emlyn, Visct.
Baring, rt. hon. W. B.	Entwisle, W.
Barrington, Visct.	Escott, B.
Bateson, T.	Estcourt, T. G. B.
Benbow, J.	Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Fitzroy, hon. H.
Beresford, Major	Flower, Sir J.
Bernard, Visct.	Forman, T. S.
Blackburne, J. I.	Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.
Boldero, H. G.	Fuller, A. E.
Borthwick, P.	Gaskell, J. Milnes
Botfield, B.	Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Bowles, Adm.	Gladstone, Capt.
Bramston, T. W.	Gordon, hon. Capt.
Brisco, M.	Gore, M.
Broadley, H.	Goulburn, rt. hn. H.
Bruce, Lord E.	Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Granby, Marq. of
Buck, L. W.	Greene, T.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Grimston, Visct.
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Hale, R. B.
Burroughes, H. N.	Halford, Sir H.
Campbell, Sir H.	Hamilton, C. J. B.
Cardwell, E.	Hamilton, G. A.
Carew, W. H. P.	Hamilton, W. J.
Chelsea, Visct.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Clayton, R. R.	Harris, hon. Capt.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Henley, J. W.
Clive, Visct.	Herbert, rt. hn. S.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Hope, Sir J.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.	Hope, hon. C.
Cole, hon. H. A.	Hope, A.
Coote, Sir C. H.	Hope, G. W.
Corry, rt. hn. H.	Hornby, J.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Hotham, Lord
Cripps, W.	Houldsworth, T.

Hughes, W. B.	Rashleigh, W.
Hussey, A.	Repton, G. W. J.
Hussey, T.	Richards, R.
Ingestre, Visct.	Rolleston, Col.
Inglis, Sir R. H.	Rous, hon. Capt.
Jocelyn, Visct.	Rumbold, C. E.
Jones, Capt.	Sanderson, R.
Kemble, H.	Scott, hon. F.
Ker, D. S.	Seymour, Sir H. B.
Lefroy, A.	Shaw, rt. hn. F.
Lennox, Lord A.	Sibthorp, Col.
Liddell, hon. H. T.	Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Lincoln, Earl of	Smollett, A.
Lockhart, W.	Somerset, Lord G.
Lowther, Sir J. H.	Somerton, Visct.
Lowther, hon. Col.	Spooner, R.
Lygon, hon. Gen.	Stewart, J.
Mackenzie, T.	Stuart, H.
Mackenzie, W. F.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
McNeill, D.	Taylor, E.
Manners, Lord C. S.	Tennent, J. E.
Martin, C. W.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Masterman, J.	Thornhill, G.
Maxwell, hon. J. P.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Meynell, Capt.	Trevor, hon. G. R.
Mildmay, H. St. J.	Trollope, Sir J.
Mundy, E. M.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Nicholl, rt. hn. J.	Vernon, G. H.
Norreys, Lord	Vivian, J. E.
Packe, C. W.	Waddington, H. S.
Palmer, R.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Palmer, G.	Wood, Col. T.
Patten, J. W.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.	Wortley, hn. J. S.
Peel, J.
Pennant, hon. Col.	TELLERS.
Pringle, A.	Young, J.
Pusey, P.	Baring, H.

List of theNOES.
Archbold, R.	Duncannon, Visct.
Baine, W.	Dundas, F.
Bannerman, A.	Ebrington, Visct.
Barnard, E. G.	Ellice, E.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Esmonde, Sir T.
Blake, M. J.	Etwall, R.
Blake, Sir V.	Ewart, W.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Forster, M.
Bowes, J.	Gibson, T. M.
Bright, J.	Gill, T.
Brotherton, J.	Gore, hon. R.
Butler, P. S.	Hallyburton, Ld. J. G.
Byng, G.	Hastie, A.
Byng, rt. hn. G. S.	Hawes, B.
Carew, hon. R. S.	Heathcoat, J.
Chapman, B.	Hill, Lord M.
Christie, W. G.	Hindley, C.
Colborne, hn. W. N. R.	Howard, P. H.
Collett, J.	Hutt, W.
Craig, W. G.	Jervis, J.
Crawford, W. S.	Lambton, H.
Curteis, H. B.	Langston, J. H.
Denison, J. E.	Lemon, Sir C.
Dennistoun, J.	Leveson, Lord
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.	Listowel, Earl of
Duncan, Visct.	McTaggart, Sir J.
Duncan, G.	Mangles, R. D.

Martin, J.	Scott, R.
Mitcalfe, H.	Seymour, Lord
Mitchell, T. A.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Moffat, G.	Smith, J. A.
Morris, D.	Smith, rt. hn. R. V.
O'Brien, J.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
O'Brien, W. S.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
O'Connell, M. J.	Stanton, W. H.
Ord, W.	Stewart, P. M.
Oswald, J.	Stuart, Lord J.
Paget, Col.	Towneley, J.
Palmerston, Visct.	Tufnell, H.
Pattison, J.	Wakley, T.
Philips, M.	Warburton, H.
Plumridge, Capt.	Wawn, J. T.
Ponsonby, hn. C. F. C.	Williams, W.
Rawdon, Col.	Yorke, H. R.
Redington, T. N.	TELLERS.
Ross, D. R.	Oswald, Capt.
Russell, Lord J.	Bellew, R. M.

On the main Question being again put,

Sir R. H. Inglis

stated, that it was made a boast, that now, for the first time, an institution, founded by the State, had been established without any regard to religion. Her Majesty's Government would either fail in making a system of education without religion in Ireland, or the professors would circulate their own peculiar doctrines. He moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.

Viscount Ebrington

could not find for what class of students these Colleges were designed, or whom they would benefit, and not having any confidence that the Government would conduct them satisfactorily, must vote against the Bill. On these grounds he should support the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

said, that the Amendment could not be put in its present form.

Sir R. Inglis

Then I shall content myself with giving a simple negative to the proposition.

The House again divided on the Question that the Bill be now read a third time:—Ayes 177; Noes 26: Majority 151.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Barrington, Visct.
A'Court, Capt.	Bateson, T.
Aglionby, H. A.	Bellew, R. M.
Archbold, R.	Benbow, J.
Astell, W.	Bentinck, Lord G.
Baillie, Col.	Blackburne, J. I.
Baine, W.	Boldero, H. G.
Baird, W.	Borthwick, P.
Balfour, J. M.	Botfield, B.
Barkly, H.	Bowes, J.
Baring, T.	Bowles, Adm.
Baring, rt. hon. W. B.	Brisco, M.

Brotherton, J.	Howard, P. H.
Bruce, Lord E.	Hughes, W. B.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Hussey, T.
Byng, rt. hn. G. S.	Hutt, W.
Cardwell, E.	Ingestre, Visct.
Carew, hon. R. S.	Jermyn, Earl
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Jervis, J.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Jocelyn, Visct.
Chapman, B.	Jones, Capt.
Chelsea, Visct.	Lambton, H.
Christie, W. D.	Lemon, Sir C.
Clayton, R. R.	Lennox, Lord A.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Lincoln, Earl of
Cockburn, rt. hon. Sir G.	Listowel, Earl of
Collett, J.	Lockhart, W.
Coote, Sir C. H.	Lowther, Sir J. H.
Corry, right hon. H.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Craig, W. G.	M'Neill, D.
Crawford, W. S.	Mangles, R. D.
Cripps, W.	Manners, Lord C. S.
Curteis, H. B.	Martin C. W.
Damer, hon. Col.	Meynell, Capt.
Denison, J. E.	Mildmay, H. St. J.
Denison, E. B.	Mitcalfe, H.
Dennistoun, J.	Mitchell, T. A.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.	Moffatt, C. G.
Dodd, G.	Mundy, E. M.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Duncan, Visct.	Norreys, Lord
Duncombe, hon. A.	Northland, Visct.
East, J. B.	Ord, W.
Emlyn, Visct.	Packe, C. W.
Entwisle, W.	Palmerston, Visct.
Escott, B.	Patten, J. W.
Ewart, W.	Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Peel, J.
Fitzroy, hon. H.	Pennant, hon. Col.
Flower, Sir J.	Phillips, M.
Forster, M.	Plumridge, Capt.
Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.	Ponsonby, hon. C. F.
Gaskell, J. M.	Pusey, P.
Gibson, T. M.	Rawdon, Col.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Redington, T. N.
Gladstone, Capt.	Repton, G. W. J.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Rolleston, Col.
Gore, M.	Ross, D. R.
Gore, hn. R. O.	Rous, hon. Capt.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Rumbold, C. E.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Russell, Lord J.
Greene, T.	Sanderson, R.
Grimston, Visct.	Sandon, Visct.
Hale, R. B.	Scott, hon. F.
Halford, Sir H.	Seymour, Sir H. B.
Hamilton, C. J. B.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Hamilton, G. A.	Smith, J. A.
Hamilton, W. J.	Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Smythe, hon. G.
Harris, hon. Capt.	Smollett, A.
Hawes, B.	Somerset, Lord G.
Herbert, rt. hn. S.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Hollond, R.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hope, Sir J.	Stanton, W. H.
Hope, hon. C.	Stewart, J.
Hope, G. W.	Stuart, Lord J.
Hotham, Lord	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Houldsworth, T.	Tennent, J. E.

Thesiger, Sir F.	Warburton, H.
Towneley, J.	Wawn, J. T.
Trench, Sir F. W.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Trevor, hon. G. R.	Williams, W.
Trollope, Sir J.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Tufnell, H.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Tyrell, Sir J. T.	Yorke, H. R.
Vernon, G. H.
Vivian, J. E.	TELLERS.
Wakley, T.	Young, J.
Walsh, Sir J. B.	Baring, H.

List of the NOES.
Adderly, C. B.	Henley, J. W.
Archdall, Capt. M.	Hornby, J.
Arkwright, G.	Kemble, H.
Bramston, T. W.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Broadley, H.	O'Brien, W. S.
Buck, L. W.	O'Connell, M. J.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Rashleigh, W.
Carew, W. H. P.	Richards, R.
Clive, Visct.	Sibthorp, Col.
Dickinson, F. H.	Spooner, R.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Waddington, H. S.
Ebrington, Visct.
Estcourt, T. G. B.	TELLERS.
Fitzmaurice, hon. W.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Fuller, A. E.	Hope, A.

Bill read a third time and passed.