HC Deb 02 June 1845 vol 80 cc1235-98
Mr. Monckton Milnes

, resuming the Adjourned Debate, said, he should confine himself strictly to the Motion before the House — the Second Reading of the Colleges (Ireland) Bill. The measure had been opposed on two very different grounds—the one intelligible and logical, but of the other he could not say as much. One kind of opposition had been raised by the hon. Members for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; and this he would call the Protestant opposition. Those hon. Members had some time ago refused to contribute anything to the education of the Roman Catholic clergy; and now they asserted that it was impossible for the present Government to do anything for the education of the laity of Ireland. They said they would not allow of this education, because it was not religious; but surely they would see that there was a sophism in their argument. They used the term religion not in the sense in which a Roman Catholic would use it, but in a sense peculiarly Protestant. Therefore, if the argument assumed this form, the Government must either establish colleges in Catholic Ireland upon Protestant principles, or those hon. Gentlemen would not assent to any colleges at all. What was that but the absolute evasion of all education whatever for Roman Catholics? But another line of argument had been adopted by his noble Friend the Member for Newark, and his noble Friend who had seconded him, and a strong pamphlet had been put forth, which it was probable some hon. Members had read, in which the "ungodlies" of Her Majesty's present Government had been spoken of as if the writer had not liked to use the hard Greek word Atheist, but had preferred the negative expression. If the whole subject were examined, it would be found that there had been in different periods of the world two great academic systems. One of them had arisen in the middle ages, and had been fostered by the Catholic Church; and upon that had been founded the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. No doubt at that time there had existed throughout the whole of the European Universities a strong and severe religious discipline, and there had also been the inroduction of religious matter into all the forms of science and philosophy; but why was it that a different system had since been adopted, and even forced upon the minds of the people? Now, the student at Padua or Bologna was as free in these matters as the student at Ghent. Bologna was full of young intellect; and he had been told that the Church had regarded persons in that University, in respect to the late revolution, with a more suspicious eye than any other part of the population. His belief was, that academical institutions which were now to be founded, either in Ireland or elsewhere, must be founded irrespective of religious education. He must not, however, be understood as carrying this argument too far. There was nothing in the principle to exclude private endowment for separate religious persuasions, or voluntary examination in religious matters; nor did it exclude—if it could be imparted properly and usefully—that part of theological instruction which did not bear directly upon religious opinions, but which formed part of the education of every man of good breeding and understanding. To illustrate the case, he would mention the University of London, which had been founded irrespectively of religious instruction. A proposal to admit voluntary religious instruction there had been made by Dr. Pye Smith; and there was no doubt that examination upon historical Christianity would by this time have formed part of the education at the London University, had it not been for fortuitous circumstances, which in all probability would be overruled. Now, if this system were not chosen in Ireland, the other must be adopted to its fullest extent, and the academical education of the youth of that country must be entrusted solely to the Roman Catholic clergy. For that body he had never expressed or entertained any disrespect; he had always regarded them as most able and worthy men, and the only faults he could find in them appeared incident to their political position. He did not, however, think that any Member of that House would be favourable to placing academical instruction solely in the hands of the Roman Catholic priesthood. But he thought, although the Resolutions he held in his hand contained much that the Government could not grant, they yet contained much that was reasonable, and which any Government would practically adopt. No doubt a majority of the students in the south and west being Roman Catholics, it would be only just that a majority of the professors there should also be Roman Catholics. His right hon. Friend had just answered some remarks made by the hon. Member for Wallingford, relative to Oxford University, which he (Mr. Milnes) would notice, because that statement bore upon the University of Cambridge also, to which his noble Friend the Member for Newark, and himself, owed so much. In his time, during the whole period of his University course, he had never heard the subject of divinity mooted in any way. The only point connected with it was, that he remembered being examined, not theologically, but critically, in one of the Greek gospels. It would give him much gratification to see these proposed Colleges, when established in Ireland, forming one great University for Ireland with Trinity College; and he hoped to see, the day when Trinity, preserving all her collegiate rights, would yet be brought into a wider field of usefulness, and that the whole of the Colleges would flourish as one national University, each College enjoying its own rights and privileges. One word to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He owned he did not think the course they had adopted in this matter was altogether wise and useful. The Irish people would do well to consider whether it would not be better for them that their academical education should be founded upon a great liberal basis, rather than be dependent upon the will of any hierarchy whatever. He believed that the indirect influence which that hierarchy would necessarily have, was much better than any direct influence which could be placed in their hands. As to the danger of infidelity, he could not entertain such a fear regarding the most Christian nation on the globe. The Irish clergy might, he thought, be depended upon for implanting religious instruction in the minds of their youth. There was Young Ireland and Old Ireland, and, though there might have been a reconciliation at Conciliation Hall, and the wound to all appearance healed, yet the fact of there having been a reconciliation showed that there was a party in Ireland jealous of the encroachments of the Roman Catholic hierarchy—a party which would grow up and increase to a formidable extent. Let the Roman Catholic Church exercise, as it now did, a free and independent influence, and a pastoral care; but, he believed, that to entrust it with any further power would be most fatal both to Ireland and to England.

Lord John Russell

I quite agree, Sir, with one observation made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He says this measure makes no pretence to perfection. I agree with him in that, but I own I do not think that a merit in the Bill. I could have wished it had been less crude. I wish it had been prepared with more care, that it might tend better to complete the system of education in Ireland. I say this, because I acknowledge that the motives for bringing it forward indicate both a wish and an intention to promote the happiness of Ireland. I agree that the object is a praiseworthy one; and I differ widely from my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who is one of the strongest objectors to this Bill. But at the same time, in reviewing the different provisions of this Bill, I cannot but think it still requires much alteration and improvement to fit it for the object for which it is intended. I will look at it in two points of view. I will look at it, first, as regards the circumstances of Ireland; and, secondly, as regards the principles upon which it is founded, and on which it is recommended by Her Majesty's Government for adoption by this House in the present Session. As respects Ireland, I have always considered that the Catholic Relief Bill created an entirely new state of things in Ireland, and that from that time the Legislature and the Government were bound to look to a better organization of society in that country. I say a better organization, because I consider that many of those ties which are strong in all those countries where social happiness is secured—which are strong in this country, England—are feeble, and in some cases are nearly altogether dissolved, in Ireland. Whether the Government be in the hands of one political party or another, its acts are received by the people of this country as sanctioned by authority, to which they are ever ready to pay due obedience. We have laws, the administration of which possesses the general confidence of the people both in England and in Scotland. We have an Established Church which exercises great influence for good throughout this country; and there is an Established Church of another form which has the greatest influence in Scotland. We have another relation in this country—the relation of landlord and tenant—which binds men together by the ties of protection on the one hand, and of regard on the other. If we look to all the relations and all the ties which bind men together in society, we shall find a vast difference between this country and Ireland. In Ireland, your Executive is weak—not personally weak. No man will say that its weakness arises from any personal fault of the Lord Lieutenant to whom is at present entrusted the government of that part of the British Empire. Nobody can doubt that that noble Lord (Lord Heytesbury) is sufficiently qualified, both by talent and experience, to discharge the duties of the situation in which he is placed. But your Executive in Ireland is from circumstances weak. If you look to the administration of the law in that country—which it was one of the great objects of the late Government to strengthen, from the conviction that popular confidence was the surest basis upon which the law of any country could rest—you will find, nay, we have heard the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury himself admit, that in the administration of the law there is not that confidence among the people of Ireland which is absolutely essential to its producing any beneficial effect. If, again, we look at the Established Church in Ireland, what do we see? We see that that Church has influence over only a small portion of the people, while among the great mass it neither affords religions consolation to the dying, nor moral instruction to the living. And, finally, if we look at the relation of landlord and tenant in that country, we shall find that it rather promotes dissension and crime, than good order and peace. If, then, Sir, such is a true picture of the state of Ireland, I think that a Government, in undertaking the great subject of public education, ought to endeavour, upon that subject as upon every other, to knit together the various orders of society, and make use of any means and of any power which they might find existing in that society which tended to promote good and to avert evil. Now, Sir, as I view it, differing as I do from a great portion of the people of this country, I consider the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland as one of those powers by which good may be promoted—by which the people may be drawn away from disturbance—by which they may be brought to meet together in social brotherhood, and by which they may be led to pay a willing obedience to authority, and just respect to the law. I should say, therefore, Sir, on a question of this kind, the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy ought to be fairly, not humbly or meanly, but fairly and honestly sought. The terms which they might ask might be extravagant or narrow minded; but you should fairly discuss with them as to what could be introduced in your plan, and what ought to be rejected. In this respect the present Bill is very defective; but most certainly, you should not omit in any Bill which you propose for academical education in Ireland, that great element of your success, and almost the basis upon which your system must in future rest — the concurrence of the Roman Catholic clergy. What do I find in the memorial which has been presented by the Roman Catholic hierarchy to the Government on this subject? I find that the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland—representing the Catholic Church in Ireland—have come to resolutions which, whatever may be made of them by others, appear to me merely to imply mistrust in the tendency of your measure—a fear that the faith and morals of the middle orders of the people of Ireland belonging to the Roman Catholic communion, will be endangered by the measure you have proposed. Unless, I therefore, you can allay these apprehensions—unless you can induce the Roman Catholic prelates, and their clergy generally, to think that they can fairly recommend to those who come to them for spiritual advice, that they should place their sons at the Colleges which you propose to found—unless, I say, you can do this, the very best that you can hope for your measure is, that it will be null; but my fear is, that it will be noxious. If that is the case, I think that the prelates and the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church will have derived but little satisfaction from the various observations which have been made in this House upon the subject of this measure. They will derive little consolation from being told that we will not allow of Roman Catholic ascendancy, and that we will keep down the Roman Catholic Church; neither will they receive much encouragement by being told that in Italy there are no such fears entertained respecting the absence of the strictness of religious discipline; that at Padua and Bologna the restraints of former times are no longer observed; and that from thence issued forth the doctrines and disciples of "Young Italy." Now, what is done in Italy, where little reverence is paid to the Church, with what they know is the case with regard to the Universities of Italy, France, and Germany—for there is no doubt these reflections have crossed their minds—will make the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland, so far from embracing the plans of those Universities as competent and useful precedents, flee from them as dangers to be avoided. If that is the case, let us consider a little whether there be any mode by which, consistently with our principles, and consistently with the plan we have conceived, we can make this measure more likely to be acceptable to the religious teachers of the great majority of the people of Ireland. It is objected to the scheme, that it is entirely wanting in so far as making any provision for religious instruction. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, I conceive, means by that remark, as the hon. Gentleman who spoke last rightly interpreted it, that there is a want of religious instruction in the Protestant faith. It is quite clear, that if that is the want intended to be expressed, and that if you supply that want by appointing teachers in Protestant theology, although you might add to the establishment of the Protestant Church, which is already filled to overflowing, you will produce no effect whatever as regards the general body of the people of Ireland. But when I am told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Graham) that there are analogous cases and precedents for educational institutions entirely without any provision for religious instruction, I own it appears to me, as the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to quote the analogous cases and precedents, that the analogies had very little resemblance, and that the precedents were by no means applicable. Let us take the educational establishments in England—the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The right hon. Gentleman told us with respect to Oxford, and the hon. Gentleman who spoke last told us with respect to Cambridge, that there was but little religious instruction in those Universities. If that be the case, what, let me ask, could be the ground of objection to the admisssion of Protestant Dissenters to receive their education at those Universities? But, in the second place, although the right hon. Gentleman may prove, as he seemed to admit tonight, that there was great defect in the practical exhibitions with regard to religious instruction on the part of the masters and teachers at the University of Oxford, yet he does not prove that that institution was intended to be conducted without embracing religion as a branch of instruction. Above all, we know that before the Reformation, the heads and teachers in those Colleges were generally Roman Catholic ecclesiastics. As soon as the Reformation took place, and in the reign of Edward VI., those Catholics were turned out of office, and Protestants were put in their places. Again, in the reign of Queen Mary, the Catholics were restored to these offices; and afterwards, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, Protestants were put at the head of these Colleges. In all these cases, these ecclesiastics were put into these offices to carry out the intention of these institutions—namely, that religion should be considered as a main part of the instruction and education that was to be given. But, says the right hon. Gentleman, there were no lectures on theology in those days, but there are now. In answer to this, I must say, I do not think that either in the Colleges already existing, or in those to be hereafter formed, an attendance on theological lectures is necessary for instruction in religion. But, if there have ever been tutors belonging to the Church of England who have had the pupils under their immediate care, and if proctors and masters have uniformly been appointed to superintend the religious education of the under-graduates, it is not just to say that religion has been overlooked in those Universities; or that the State has not considered religious instruction to be a part of the general education of those institutions. My deliberate opinion, however, is, that it is not true that secular education is an evil, unless it be combined with religious instruction. I think that secular education, without religious instruction, is a good. I agree in the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel), not immediately on the subject of instruction, but with regard to a society established at Tamworth, where persons of various creeds and denominations were joined together for the purpose of obtaining instruction in science and literature. The address delivered by the right hon. Gentleman at that time was very much criticised and attacked; but I thought that the attack, though made with great ability, entirely failed to shake the position which the right hon. Gentleman had taken up. But this I say, that no man who has the means, with advantage, of joining religious instruction with secular knowledge, will fail todo so. If you look at the instance of any father of a family who is against the system of public education for his children—who disapproves of public schools, and who educates his sons at home—you will not find any such father think it sufficient to give those sons instruction in Greek, in Latin, and in mathematics, or in mere secular knowledge, but he will join with it instruction in the religion of that Church, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, to which he himself belongs. But when you come to consider public education, you meet with difficulties—and in some instances difficulties which are insuperable. I consider this to be the case with regard to an educational institution, in the foundation of which I took a part—I mean the University College of this metropolis. It was wished that Protestant Dissenters should have the power of sending their sons to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. That was refused. Lord Stanley made an able speech in the House of Commons in favour of their admission, but it was refused by Parliament, and they were not admitted. Seeing this, it appeared to me, as well as to others, that Protestant Dissenters should not be deprived of some sort of University education, bearing the best features of secular learning that could be procured. It was a question among some of us belonging to that University, whether some religious instruction could not be given. I remember that some of us who were members of the Church of England thought that it would be advisable to give lectures on theology of so general a kind that all classes of pupils—Dissenters as well as members of the Established Church—might be able to attend. I did not join in that opinion, and for this reason, which I communicated, I remember, to a right reverend Prelate, that having a council entirely of a mixed body, composed of persons of various religious sects, we could have no superintendence or control over the persons appointed to give theological lectures—that it would lead to disputes whether the lectures were in consonance with the true and generally received principles of Christianity, or whether they were calculated to convey dangerous doctrines under the guise of a general lecture on Christianity. But that was a necessity to which we—in reference to the London University—were obliged to submit. We were put to this alternative, either not to have any instruction in divinity at all, or to run the danger of having lectures delivered which might give great offence to members either of the Church of England, or to those belonging to the different sects of Protestant Dissenters. But I think I have shown, that generally speaking, as far as your institutions go, you have, with respect to England, looked to teaching religion as one of the great objects of a university education. I do not speak of what is called the University of London, because that merely examines persons for degrees, those persons having had their religious educations already at various other institutions; some of those institutions belonging to Protestant Dissenters, where there are teachers of theology according to the doctrines of the particular bodies, whether Independents, Baptists, or whatever other sect they may be; or at Roman Catholic colleges, where the pupils have imbibed their parents' faith. The University of London does not profess to give any religious instruction, but examines persons and grants degrees. With respect to Scotland, I think the right hon. Gentleman is in error as to the system pursued at the Universities in that portion of the Empire. There has lately been raised the question whether the test which exists in those Universities should not be abolished; though, in fact, no test is any longer enforced. But the situation of Scotland is entirely different from the situation of Ireland. The situation of Scotland is this—that the people, though differing among themselves about church discipline, and church government, yet are generally agreed upon the main and important doctrines of their religious faith. But it was by no means a matter unimportant in respect to the professors of the Universities of Scotland, as to what their character may be. I remember a case where the appointment of a professor caused great excitement among the religious people of Scotland; and yet it was not concerning the appointment of a professor of divinity, of history, or of moral philosophy, but it concerned merely the appointment of a professor of mathematics. The right hon. Gentleman may probably remember the case. I allude to Professor Leslie. But taking these as the only analogies and precedents which the right hon. Gentleman can give, we come to Ireland, and there we find a University which is, with regard to the undergraduates, a liberal institution, admitting them to the full benefits of the education given by the College; but with respect to its honours, with respect to its fellowships, there is a separate and distinct system observed. I venture to say that that University forms no precedent for the Colleges which you are about to establish. I cannot understand how it is just that you should establish these Colleges, and not make some great alteration in Trinity College. I can understand very well how you should take the plan recommended by the noble Lord the Member for Newark (Lord John Manners), which that noble Lord quoted from Mr. O'Connell—a plan for leaving Trinity College a separate foundation, and having a distinct University for the Roman Catholics in another part of the country. That would be a plan at once distinct, consistent, and uniform. The Protestants would then have a University; the Roman Catholics would also enjoy their University; and the Presbyterians would possess one of their own. But, Sir, with regard to this particular institution as now proposed, it will differ from the only College at present established in Ireland; it will differ also from the Universities of Oxford and of Cambridge in England, and, as I think, it is altogether unsuited to the present state of that country. An hon. Gentleman who is, I believe, a Member of the Repeal Association—the Member for Cork (Mr. Roche)—objected to these Colleges, because all the professors were to be nominated by the Government. Now, if the people of Ireland were willing to agree to this plan, and if those who spoke the language of the people of Ireland agreed that there should be a foundation, or the professors of which should be so nominated, I think we might then adopt it. But we know that that is not the case. We know that great jealousy exists on the part of the Roman Catholics with respect to the use which might be made of these Colleges by a Protestant Government. I know hon. Gentlemen might say—"Surely the Roman Catholics may fairly trust the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) who is now in power." But may not the Roman Catholics very justly reply — "True, so long as the right hon. Baronet remains in power, we may not apprehend any evil to arise from this power of nomination; but if, at any future time, the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, or the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre) should come into the right hon. Baronet's place, what then would be our security against an abuse of this power?" That is a feeling largely shared in by the Roman Catholics of Ireland; and while it exists it is impossible they should be satisfied with giving this power of nomination to the Government. Suppose the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) himself, instead of holding the opinion which he now holds, held the opinion which he entertained five years ago, I think the people of Ireland might be disposed very warrantably to cherish great distrust even of his views. I cannot see any great advantages to be derived from these Colleges as at present proposed to be instituted, either looking at the state of Ireland, or looking at the principles upon which they are to be founded. I say, that with regard to the state of Ireland, you ought to take advantage of the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy, and obtain it in your favour for the promotion of public instruction in that country; and I say, that with regard to the principle of the measure, you are bound, if it should become a matter of necessity, to give secular instruction even if you totally omit religious instruction from your plan. But if you have any means by which you can give religious instruction, and promote it amongst those who are to benefit from these Colleges—then I entreat you not to omit so great a portion of your plan out of your proposal. Now, what is there to prevent your agreeing to some kind of proposal which should be in accordance with the Roman Catholic clergy? The right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) says he is willing to have halls attached to these Colleges. That may mean a great deal, or it may mean very little. I do not allude to where the funds are to come from, by which these halls are to be erected. Whether you get the stone and brick from the public funds, or whether the Roman Catholics raise money amongst themselves, to build the halls, I cannot consider it to be a very essential question; but what I consider is, whether you will acknowledge as of any authority the heads or deans whom the Roman Catholic prelates may appoint to these proposed halls? Will you admit that they should impose within those halls certain regulations? Will you sanction any rule requiring regular attendance of Roman Catholic pupils at prayer, or at a place of public worship; and will you give your sanction to a regulation that the sentence for an habitual neglect of these orders and regulations should be expulsion from the College? If you will do this, and thereby give the Roman Catholic prelates authority in these institutions—if you will recognise them as a part of your plan, I think you would get over much of your difficulty, and many of the objections that now beset you. If you would provide for the appointment of your professors without saying that those appointed to anatomy, rhetoric, mathematics, geology, or other branches of learning, must be approved of by the Government, then, I believe, it would be practicable, if not to attain, at least to approach the attainment of your object. All that is requisite is, to get another mode of choosing your professors. But there remains another portion of your plan, in which I am induced to consider you have not approached to any degree of perfection. If you intend to give degrees to those who shall attend these Colleges, I am inclined to think that giving them by a separate power would not be so useful a plan as having the Colleges all united with the University of Dublin. But whether you confer degrees by means of the University of Dublin, or by a separate University unconnected with Trinity College, still I think, in either case, it ought to form a part of your plan. As the matter stands at present you have Trinity College in the hands of Protestants, with a University attached to it able to give degrees, and which will of course be distinguished by its superior ascendancy above these provincial Colleges, which will be considered subordinate and inferior to it, as a mere charity of the State towards those who ought to be placed on an equality with the Protestants. For these reasons, I consider the plan, as at present proposed, crude and incomplete. I see no reason why the Government should not (notwithstanding they, in the first instance, brought the measure forward without doing so) consult those distinguished Roman Catholics who, whatever may be their situation, must have great influence with their countrymen on a question of this nature. I speak more especially of such men as Archbishop Murray—a man no less distinguished for his moderation of opinion and his loyalty to the Throne, than he is by an unswerving fidelity to his own Church. I cannot see any degradation to the Government, or any want of wisdom, in asking such men what are the arrangements which they think would make this plan complete, and render the Parliamentary grant which you propose to make, useful towards the improvement of the middle classes of Ireland, and useful also in promoting the social progress and the future happiness of that country. If Her Majesty's Government will take that course—if, before going into Committee upon the Bill, they shall have made some communication which shall enable them to say that they have the assent generally of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, and that they see their way to the success of this plan—I think, then, it may proceed forwards, and that we may look to a favourable termination of it. With regard to the Presbyterians of Ireland, as far as I understand, they are satisfied with the plan as it stands. With regard to them, it is proposed to continue the sums allotted by Parliament for the Presbyterian teachers of divinity. It appears to me that Her Majesty's Ministers have been alarmed by the outcry which has been raised against their plan respecting the endowment of Maynooth. Their plan with respect to Maynooth, whatever may have been the objections raised against it, was a good plan, and sufficient for its object. It went straight to its object. It was for the improvement of the education of the young men who will hereafter become candidates for the Roman Catholic priesthood. The right hon. Gentleman told us in detail how it would effect that; and if religious objections were not allowed to prevail, there was no doubt that the measure would be a good and efficient one. But, with respect to your present plan, you seem to have been afraid of your own wisdom, and frightened by the objections of those who have doubted whether you have pursued the right path. I own that the noble Lord the Member for Newark made some sound objections to this Bill; but I cannot agree with him in opposing the second reading, because, considering the object a good one, I do not despair that Her Majesty's Government will so amend it as to make it a useful and beneficial measure. But I own I should consider it a very foolish disposition of the public money, if, after voting a sum of 100,000l. or thereabouts, to begin with, and then several thousands a year afterwards, we should at last be defeated in our object, and be obliged some years hence to admit this to have been an inconsiderate measure, and one which we repented to have passed. With these views, therefore, I shall vote for the second reading of the Bill, indulging some hopes that Her Majesty's Ministers, acting in accordance with their own principles, will amend and improve it.

Lord Mahon

had given his most anxious consideration to the measures of Her Majesty's Government with respect to education in Ireland. To the first of these measures, the Bill for the endowment of Maynooth, he was glad that he had been able to afford in its different stages a conscientious support. On this second measure, with respect to Irish Colleges, he should also vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill; but he was bound frankly to declare that he should so vote only in the hope that the Bill would receive great amendment in Committee; and if such amendment were not made, it would be his duty—his unwelcome duty, but he would not shrink from it—to give his decided opposition to the third reading. He would point out plainly and concisely the nature of the Amendment which he thought desirable. What was the leading defect in the Bill? Could any one doubt that the defect was to be found in the utter want of security for religious instruction? He said want of security; for although it was true that the Bill did not repel but rather invited private benefactions for religious instruction, what security was there that ten or even fifty years would not elapse without any such provision being made? He should consider it an evil precedent for future legislation, if even for a single year they were to adopt the principle of dissociating secular from religious instruction. In the year 1839, when the Government of that day proposed a measure which in his opinion did not sufficiently recognise the association of religion with instruction, he moved the direct negative to the proposal; and so strong was then the feeling both in the House and in the country, that although the Government of the day prevailed, they prevailed only by a majority of two. He had since attentively reviewed the vote he then gave, and that review had confirmed the strength of his conviction as to the sentiments he then expressed. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had defended the present measure by an analogy to University College, London but on an examination that analogy could not be borne out, for University College was founded on the principle that after the day's instruction the pupils would return to their families, who would be ready and willing to give them religious instruction; but was that the case with the Colleges under this Bill? Did they found a College in Galway for the town of Galway, or for the inhabitants of Connaught? Did they found the College in Belfast only for the townsmen of Belfast, or for the inhabitants of Ulster? They must suppose that to these Colleges the large majority of the pupils would come from a considerable distance, and that they would not reside with their own families. He looked upon the principle of associating State instruction with religion as most important; and he did not understand that they were severed by this Bill because the importance of the connexion was not acknowledged, but because it was contended that the circumstances of Ireland at that moment presented an insuperable objection to its practical working. Could no remedy be found for this? Why should there not be professors of theology remunerated not by State endowment, but by lecture fees? Why should there not be professors of theology in each College connected with the Protestants, with the Roman Catholics, and with the Presbyterians, not appointed by the Crown, but receiving a lecture fee from each pupil attending them? If there were 100 pupils, each contributing two guineas and a half a year, it would be, though not ample, yet in the first instance sufficient remuneration. Then with respect to the 14th Clause of this Bill; to that he had the strongest objection. Instead of forbidding absolutely and without qualification the attendance on religious instruction, he would make it compulsory on every pupil to attend some religious instruction; but he would leave it to each pupil, or to the parents, to make choice of the professor; and he would render a certificate of such attendance indispensable for any examination for a degree in the College. Sure he was that no system of education which did not provide for religious instruction would receive the confidence of the country, or, as he hoped, the sanction of that House. To the principle of a necessary connexion between religious instruction and secular knowledge he deliberately adhered; and if they gave instruction without religion, they would inform, but not ameliorate; they would refine the understanding, but would not correct the heart. He found the same feeling as strongly held by the Roman Catholic body. The Government wished to conciliate the people of Ireland: it was an honourable and a wise desire; but conciliation was not to be attained by disregarding alike the religious prepossessions of both parties; and they must beware, that as they sought this object, they did not find it recede the further from their view.

Mr. A. B. Hope

said, that his hon. Friend had somewhat freely condemned the English Universities. In that censure he did not concur. He had always taken a strong view of the present measure. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman on Friday night had confirmed him to the utmost in his apprehensions that this measure, though innocent in appearance, was a measure most dangerous in principle, and such as to make all persons of Conservative principles feel it their duty to give it their firmest opposition. His noble Friend had suggested that this Bill might be amended in Committee; but it seemed to him (Mr. Hope) that the evils of this Bill, not merely adhering to it, but absolutely inherent in it, forming its very lifeblood, its body and soul, would not be removed by any Amendment. He always feared that the measure before the House might be extended as a successful application—as a kind of felicitous opportunity for the introduction to the fashionable circles of the Carlton Club, of those principles of liberal education which had hitherto been confined to the vulgar purlieus of Gower Street. The whole tone of the right hon. Baronet's speech confirmed those apprehensions to the utmost; there was little in it about the unhappy condition of Ireland, and the peculiar circumstances which rendered that country in many respects different from any other; but when he came to the precedents of University College, London, and the Scotch Universities, he became diffuse and eloquent. Not content with putting them on an equality with the Universities of England, he concluded with giving, indirectly indeed, but virtually, the preference to them, by referring to the state of discipline at Oxford thirty and forty years ago, when, as every one knew, things were very different from what they were now, coupled with an account of his own career there, given in a tone which, considering the dignified position the right hon. Gentleman occupied, he must confess, surprised him, as he believed it did other hon. Members. Could this mean nothing? He must confess that his opinion of the talent and energy of the right hon. Gentleman was too great to let it be supposed that he would be unpatriotic enough long to let it "waste its sweetness in the local air" of Scotland and Belfast, Gower Street and Galway, and permit our English seats of learning to be overridden by the incubus of a far different—far more artificial and cumbersome system of education. France, so lately become "the cynosure of neighbouring eyes," had freed herself from her old system of education; and the University of Paris, so often the terror of worldly-minded statesmen, had given place to L'Université de France, that matchless and ideal system of Stateridden education. Why should England be behind? Some persons, indeed, might kindly suppose that our Universities might be preserved as curious relics of antiquity—that, in one word, they might be preserved as a kind of perpetual fancy ball. The kind anticipations of these Gentlemen were too independent not to be distasteful, and had too much power not to be dangerous to those who were wedded to the opposite system. Old, indeed, they were, but their old age was strong and vigorous; or rather, they shared in the renewed youth of the phœnix. The recent foundation of the University of Durham on the ancient model, was a proof of their vitality—that the ancient system was still adapted to present wants. The time, he thought, was now come when the battle must be fought between those who honestly supported religious education, and those who advocated the system which prevailed in many other parts of Europe; and of which this Bill was a fearful instalment to the British Empire. The battle was now to be fought, whether there was to be in the Universities religion and discipline, and the power of self-government; or whether there was to be the negation of all these principles, as developed in the scheme which was now on the Table of the House. In whatever way the division of to-night might terminate, it would form an essential precedent, either on the one side or the other, for the defenders or impugners of the ancient system. The University College of Gower Street, and the London University, had been referred to; and he would admit that in these institutions a great deal of valuable principle was thrown away; and that principles received the weight of State authority which never ought to have been countenanced. But who were the fosterers of that measure? The Whig Government. And what was the character of the present Government? Conservatism! And what were the motives which, during ten years of a long and arduous struggle, those who were now in power called upon their friends, at a great sacrifice, and much self-denial, to place them there? The principles of Conservatism—the preserving of all that remained of old high principle, and conducting the Government upon the remnants of the ancient system, not blindly—not as if the whole of the last eleven years had been a dream—the man would be insane who would for one instant broach such a theory—yet still the same principles were to be adopted. Principle, and the application of principle, were two different things, though they were often confounded; they did anticipate that the old principles would be adopted, and suited to modern exigencies. But how had these old principles been applied in the present instance? The Conservative Government of 1845 had adopted the entire measure of 1825, which those who found it convenient to have memories would recollect was strenuously and vigorously opposed by the Tories of that day—opposed in the most practical way, not by speeches and resolutions, but by the establishment of a counter institution—King's College — and which was patronised by a Government calling itself Tory; for in those days Tories were not ashamed of the name. It appeared, then, that the Conservative policy of 1845 was coincident with the Whig policy of 1825; and that the measure which was at that time strenuously opposed, was now quoted as a precedent with as much quietness and undoubting confidence, as if it had been supported as highly as it had been strenuously opposed. But the measure now before the House went a step further than the London University. That University was founded by Royal Charter, which certainly had an imposing sound; but it only meant the Resolution of the Cabinet of the day. The Conservative Government called upon them now to consummate and set their seal to principles which were first propounded by a Whig Government. As the noble Lord the Member for London, who was one of the first founders of the London University, had truly said, in a speech to which he (Mr. Hope) had listened with great pleasure, the promised ameliorations of the Government were very vague. They had spoken of the facilities of founding halls; in the first draft of the measure they spoke of establishing lodging houses; but they had not explained the difference between these two measures. As to the institution of theological instruction, they had heard nothing; while the plea of necessity in the present state of Ireland had been driven to the winds by the counter propositions which had sprung up in various quarters. Therefore, on the ground of stern necessity, nothing could be said in favour of the measure; while all who were for maintaining the principles of religious responsibility would strenuously oppose it. On these grounds, he should strenuously support the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Newark; and he called upon all others to do the same who felt the religious responsibility of States. That doctrine, however it might be forgotten in practice—and much he feared it had been—was the foremost doctrine of the old Tory party—a principle which he had hoped would not so soon have been wasted, spent, driven to the winds by Conservatism—the spendthrift heir of thrifty Toryism. In the present confusion of parties, also, he trusted this measure would be supported by many right-thinking men who sat on the other side of the House, that is, locally speaking; and that they would thus put an end to this measure.

Mr. Villiers Stuart

observed, that in Ireland the higher classes were receiving the best education, and the peasants also were provided with schools; the time would soon come when the middle classes would form an unfavourable contrast with both, by their inefficient education. The Bill at all events proved that attention was paid to the wants of Ireland, and that an endowment was not grudged by the House. For himself he should have thought that a system of mixed education could be arranged which might diminish religious asperities; but it would be folly to overlook the objections of the Roman Catholic prelates and clergy, and their opinions were entitled to the utmost consideration. Their present proposals were most unreasonable; for instance, claiming to have the appointment of almost all the professors in a system of mixed education. One might almost think the memorial had been drawn up by some master spirit that wished to upset the plan; but it was to be hoped that it was not so, and that they would be met and conciliated by the Government, and a system established which would work properly. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) had referred to the subject of national education in Ireland, and intimated that there was an attempt to convert; if so, it was certainly facilitated by the neglect, or rather the false policy, of the Protestant clergy and bishops. He knew of a clergyman in the county of Waterford who had to go for his health to the sea-side, where he found the clergyman absent, and indeed not in the habit of attending the school, as he differed from the national system; the consequence was that Protestant children were left neglected there, while the Roman Catholic children were examined, and there was opportunity enough for attempting conversions if that were the object. The clergyman from Waterford, Mr. Mackesy, thought it his duty to attend the school while he remained there. But, as soon as Dr. Daly was appointed bishop, this gentleman, on an opportunity presenting itself, was called in front of the clergy, and received a most severe censure. Mr. Mackesy's words were— I was told by my bishop that no Protestant clergyman could, consistently with his duty, visit a national school, even for the purpose of seeing the rules fairly carried out; and, in reference to the national school I had established, he would be better pleased if I had no school at all. Were this gentleman's prospects to be ruined for life, for executing his duty? The Government ought to see that he did not suffer for it.

Mr. George A. Hamilton

said, that, considering the importance and peculiar character of the measure before the House, he did not feel—although he had much difficulty in coming to a decision—that he should be justified, or that it would be a straightforward course, to abstain from voting; and he should certainly have been sorry to give a silent vote on such an occasion. He had always thought, and always maintained, and must always maintain—speaking of education generally—that nothings deserves the name of education which is not founded upon religion, and in which secular instruction is not combined with instruction in the great truths of Christianity. The object of education, he had always considered, was to educate man as an immortal being—to instil into his mind those truths of revelation which are designed, and which alone can have the effect of really elevating his mind and character—of really raising him in the scale of moral and religious beings; and which further, as he (Mr. Hamilton) felt assured, can alone have the effect of teaching him and enabling him to fulfil properly the duties which, as a social being, he owes to that society of which he is a member. These being his opinions, it was impossible he could give his full assent, or unqualified approval, or cordial support, to any measure in reference to education which appeared to be defective in so important a particular; at the same time it was his strong opinion, and he could not disguise it, that there was a great want of a practical secular education among the classes in Ireland for whom, as he considered, the measure before the House was intended, and who, as he thought, would be likely to avail themselves of it. He had been long of opinion that there had been an omission in the manner in which education had been dealt with in Ireland. Education, he thought, had a much greater tendency to descend than to ascend—he meant to descend from the middling classes to the lower classes, rather than to ascend from the lowest to the middling classes. Great pains had been taken, for many years past, to educate the very lowest classes in Ireland; and without in the least underestimating the value of those efforts, he could not help saying that he thought in some respects their education had been forced—he meant that the struggles that had being going on in Ireland with regard to education—while they had impelled, and, perhaps, accelerated, the progress of education among the children of the lowest classes, had prevented, in some degree, the people of Ireland from taking a fair and dispassionate view of the intrinsic value of education, or of considering what education really is, and of estimating it sufficiently for its own sake; and while this system—he did not like to call it of forcing education—but while this competition with regard to education among the lowest classes was going on, the education of the class immediately above them—the children of shopkeepers, and tradesmen, and farmers, and, perhaps, small landed proprietors—had, he thought, been greatly neglected. They had, therefore, in his opinion, in this respect, as in many others, began in Ireland at the wrong end. The class above the lower class—the middling classes in Ireland—would, he thought, have been much more likely to take a sound view of the real nature and character of education, and to value it for its own sake, than the lowest class; and if they had been furnished with the means of education, and had become educated in the proper sense of the word, he thought the education of the lower classes would have followed more naturally and more beneficially. And the result of the state of things which he had described was this—that from the want of institutions for the practical instruction of the middling classes, there was either an overweening desire for a university education—a desire to send their sons to Trinity College, on the part of many for whom, perhaps, a university education was not altogether suitable — who, perhaps, were raised somewhat above their proper position in society by that species of education—or else there was a great deficiency of education, as compared with the education of the lowest classes. During the whole progress of the Commission, of which he had been a member, throughout Ireland, last year—and the Commissioners had visited every part of the country—he had made it a point to inquire whenever a witness of the class to which he alluded came before them, what was the condition of the children of that class, with regard to education; and he had no hesitation in stating, that in nearly every part of Ireland there was a complaint of the want of academical institutions for the instruction of that class. He, therefore, thought that hon. Members were under a mistake in viewing this question, or arguing upon it, as if it was a general question of university education. He did not believe there was a want of university education in Ireland; but he did think there was a great want of good academical institutions for the practical instruction of the middling classes. This being the case, he did not feel that he should be justified, except upon very strong grounds, in offering any opposition, at least in its present stage, to a measure brought forward on the responsibility of Government for remedying an acknowledged defect in the social condition of the people of Ireland. It was true the measure was short, far short, of what, according to his views, it ought to be. A mere system of secular instruction was to be given to classes of day boys in the Colleges; but then, in connexion with the Colleges, facilities and encouragement were to be afforded for religious instruction, to be conveyed through the instrumentality of private endowments; and if parties would come forward, as he hoped they would, and supply the means of affording religious instruction to the students, considering the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, and the great difficulties with which the question of education was surrounded, he thought the objection to the system, on the ground of there being no religious instruction, would in a great degree be removed, and probably in the best way. The mode by which the noble Lord the Member for Newark proposed to get rid of this objection—although it was perfectly consistent on the part of the noble Lord who had voted for the endowment of Maynooth to propose it, namely, by the endowment of theological professors of the Roman Catholic religion—appeared to him (Mr. Hamilton) to be liable to the same objection, in principle, as the Maynooth Bill, and would, in fact, raise the Maynooth question again in the House. He thought, further, that, looking at the question practically, there was a material difference between a system designed for the entire education of the lowest classes, and a system of partial instruction in certain branches of education designed for other classes in society. In providing education for the children of the lowest classes, whose parents you suppose to be ignorant, and who have no opportunity of instruction at home, you are bound to provide a complete education: the school education of these children will be in point of fact the whole of their education; and this being the case, their education in religion becomes a paramount consideration in their school education. But the case of the education of youth in other classes of society is somewhat different; and it cannot be denied that, practically, the case is differently dealt with in most of our public educational institutions. He supposed that, practically, the young men in these Colleges would either live at home, or else would be placed by their parents in the houses of persons in whom they had confidence, and who, no doubt, would be expected and required to attend to their religious education, and to see that they attended the lectures of the theological professors. Upon the whole, therefore, he did not see that there was so much danger as the noble Lord supposed, that the system practically would be one devoid of religion. He was sorry the right hon. Baronet (the Secretary for the Home Department) had spoken of this measure as an extension of the national system of education; for he was bound to say that the system appeared to him to be free from the objectionable principle which the national system contained. The principle involved in the national system, and to which he objected, was this, that a power was assumed by a human authority, a Board of Commissioners, or a Government, which, in his opinion, no human authority has a right to assume, or exercise, of pronouncing and determining that there are times and circumstances under which free access to God's revealed Word shall be denied to any portion of God's responsible creatures. That was the principle which offended the consciences of Protestants in reference to the national system of education; and the objection, he thought, did not apply to a system which was, in fact, the establishment of lectures on secular subjects for the benefit of students who might domicile themselves in certain large towns. He was sorry, also, that his hon. Friend (the Member for Waterford county) had thought it necessary to introduce into the debate, in reference to the national system of education, the name of a much-respected Prelate. He was sure his hon. Friend would be the last person to misrepresent, or even to speak harshly of an absent individual; but he thought there must have been some misunderstanding in the statement the hon. Member had made. If it should so turn out, he was sure the hon. Member would be the first to acknowledge it. Upon the whole, then, though he could not give his unqualified support to the measure, he was happy to be enabled to assent to the second reading of the Bill, as designed to supply an acknowledged want of secular education, which he thought existed among a particular class, and which was in that respect calculated to ameliorate the condition of Ireland.

Mr. Bernal Osborne

said, he should have another opportunity of bringing the whole conduct of the Bishop of Cashel before the House, when he would go fully into the nature of his charge. He would not, therefore, detain the House by any observations on the subject at present. With regard to the question before the House, he begged to say that he should not support the Amendment of the noble Lord. It was a difficult task for the Government to deal with the subject of Irish education. In the present instance they were "damned with faint praise" by their own friends, and met by opposition from parties who ought to have given them support. The noble Lord who had moved the Amendment was, he believed, the only English Member who signed a memorial to the Primate of Ireland testifying his abhorrence of the national system of education. The principle of this Bill was identical with that system, the only difference being that it was carried out with higher objects. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell), who now opposed this Bill, expressed very different opinions in 1839, in advocating the national system of education. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Inglis) had denounced the measure before the House, because it did not provide for religious education. Why, he would call the hon. Baronet's attention to the fact, that in the University of Oxford laymen were not obliged to attend theological lectures; on the contrary, the heads of that University had set their faces against it. It was true there was a forced attendance at chapel, and he had himself been obliged to go there fourteen times in one week. He objected to the clauses of the Bill which gave the Government the appointment of the professors; and he also objected to the manner of appointing the proposed visitors. He thought the professors ought not to be subjected to the imputation of being Government hacks. He was sorry the Government had not instituted an inquiry into Trinity College; the mere fact of Roman Catholics attending that College, formed a basis for legislation. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Inglis) had spoken of the Irish measures which had lately been brought forward by the Government as a gigantic scheme of godless education; he might retort by saying that Trinity College was a solemn specimen of sordid monopoly and exclusiveness. He should give his support to the Bill in its present stage, hoping to see it modified hereafter.

Mr. Gladstone

said, he agreed with the noble Lord who had that evening addressed the House, that this was an imperfect measure; but the cause of its imperfection was to be found in the present state of Ireland. Divided as Ireland was, not only by social and political, but by religious questions, it was impossible to devise any scheme of education which could at all approximate to ideal perfection. Therefore, the question was not the abstract question of perfection; but whether the measure proposed was the best, upon the whole, to meet the present state of that country and its exigencies. At the same time he must say, that he was not prepared to join in forcing any measure, even were it a much more perfect measure than this, upon the people of Ireland; but, if unsuitable to the state of the country, it would be monstrous for a majority of that House to attempt to render, under the name of a boon, that which, under other circumstances, would be no boon, but a mockery and an injustice. The noble Lord had adverted to the subject of consulting Archbishop Murray. He did not recollect to have heard that there had not been any consultation with that prelate; he believed it was possible that there might have been some communication with him on the subject. Whether that were so or not, and whether, in the present state of our relations with the Catholic Church of Ireland, it might be deemed wise by others that such consultations should take place before the introduction of such measures as that before the House, he agreed with the noble Lord, and he was sure that such would be the general sentiment of the House, that it should be conceded to the Roman Catholic community of Ireland that those whom they might choose as their heads should be consulted, both as to the adjustment of the details of such a measure as that before the House, and also upon determining whether it should pass into a law. With regard to a consultation with the Roman Catholic prelates, he would express an opinion beyond that which had been given by the noble Lord. In the course of the debates upon religious education in Ireland, his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) had adverted to the fact, that it was desirable that diplomatic relations between this country and the See of Rome should be established. He strongly concurred in that opinion. The original prohibition of such relations was not on religious, but on political grounds of a very intelligible nature, namely, that at the period of the Reformation, religious and civil affairs were so inextricably mixed up, that the Pope was for a considerable time the open enemy of this country, and ready to invade its shores, not by his own forces, but by the forces of those whom he could put in motion. If he were to look for proofs and reasons in support of his opinion, it was enough to advert to diplomatic relations which had been established—to the fact that substantial relations existed at this moment between this country and Rome, although they had not been avowed— which had been established in consequence of the absolute necessity which successive Governments had been unable to resist, although they did not think fit to avow it. It was said, with some justice, that there ought to be a communication, if they were about to provide education for the multitude of the Roman Catholic people in Ireland, with those who represented them in these matters. If that course ought to be adopted, it appeared to him desirable that there should be the means of attesting those communications by reference to the See of Rome. Archbishop Murray might give his sanction; but his authority and that of the other Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland, was not supreme: it was liable to be overruled by orders from the Court of Rome; and it might, therefore, be desirable to prevent, if possible, the rejection by the Pope of measures with reference to which it might be thought necessary to hold communications with the Roman Catholic prelates. He would allude for a moment to an observation which had been made by his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) on the subject of the University of Oxford. He thought his right hon. Friend's information was rather antiquated with reference to a measure proposed in 1845. He hoped they were in a position to have more recent intelligence from Oxford than that of 1810. He might be open to the reproach of giving stale intelligence, for he had left that University fourteen or fifteen years ago. The state of things then as to religious instruction, in contradistinction to religious discipline, he did not think to have been very unsatisfactory. From the moment they became undergraduates, they were required to attend lectures by their tutors in divinity. Only a small part of the system of religious education was carried on by the College officers; the greater portion of it was conducted in the private rooms of the tutors, in lectures to their students. That system continued until they were required to attend the College lectures during the last year of their being under-graduates. They were finally examined in the Thirty-nine Articles, in the Four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, and in the external and internal evidences of religion; and many of the great philosophical subjects which connect themselves with such evidences, were pursued to a great extent by many persons at Oxford. He did not think that an insufficient stock of religious knowledge, to be acquired by persons who were not candidates for orders, but persons who might become Members of that House—country gentlemen, lawyers, and who might occupy other positions in ordinary life. With regard to the institution of daily worship in the Universities, whatever might be said of it now, he was sure that ten or fifteen years hence it would not be spoken of in terms of reprobation. It was now generally recommended and appreciated, upon the ground of its being a just and becoming practice in a great Christian institution. It was a worthy homage in such an institution from the students to the great Being from whom they derived every blessing. Further, he begged to remind the House that before the students at Oxford graduated they were carefully examined in those books which formed a part of their reading while they were at the University. Reference having been made to the London University, he would say of that institution that it was entirely negative as to religion. The hon. Member for Pontefract had stated that it was probable some mode of examination in religion would be adopted in the London University; and the hon. Member had been so good as to place in his hand a book showing that a proposition was before the University, that the students should be required to read one book of the Pentateuch in the original Hebrew, and one book of the Gospels in Greek. This was Dr. Arnold's plan, who, in that liberal spirit which influenced his life, and gave so much interest to his biography, with the strong wish that he entertained to prevent the erection of barriers of division amongst those who called themselves Christians, made the same proposition. This plan did not admit Jews, and, therefore, it was rejected at the London University. It, however, must be said with respect to it, that it never professed to supply a complete system of religious education; but rather to supply a defect in the critical and literary knowledge of the students. The University of London, he repeated, was of a negative character as far as religion was concerned; and it was to be remembered, that it was an institution that was brought under the attention of the House of Commons every year; and, therefore, the present measure, introduced by Her Majesty's Ministers, went still further, as far as being a permanent money Vote was concerned. He might be told that the measure was fit for Ireland, though it would be unsuited to England; and, he confessed, that he regarded the validity of that argument, so far as to admit that he considered the measure to be more fitted for Ireland than for this country, because in consequence of the great difference of religious opinions in that country, the Government could not have gone so far in establishing a mixed religious system as they might if legislating for England; but the point on which he relied still more, because he regarded it as more dangerous, if the system were to be applied to this country, was, that in England, religious discipline was lax and weak in comparison with Ireland, where the mass of the population were Roman Catholics, and, as such, were necessarily subjected to a considerable degree of religious instruction. On that ground, he was comparatively favourable to the extension of the present measure to Ireland. He also felt that this proposal of the Government with regard to the religious discipline of the students, and the other point which he had before mentioned, was not very different; at least it worked out in a fair spirit in the system adopted in many of the existing Universities at the time of their original foundation, and for a considerable period afterwards. They were too apt to judge of this subject by their English notions, and the ideas of their own University experience. These were identified with the collegiate system; but they ought to look back to the time when the collegiate system was not in existence at all. What means were then taken for the religious instruction of the students? It then happened, as would be the case now in Ireland, that the religious education of pupils was derived from their connexion with the Church, and not from the University. It was not necessary, at the earlier stages of their University career, to attend at any theological lecture, or at daily worship, because, as there were no colleges, neither had they any collegiate chapels. Under that early system, therefore, the religious discipline under which every member of the University was placed, existed out of the University itself; but afterwards, when the rude outline was filled up by the establishment of collegiate institutions, the best measures were adopted for providing for the religious education of the students. In the Universities of Oxford, of Cambridge, and of Paris, and in other foreign universities, the students comprised a great number of young men sent up from all parts of the country, and these lodged in the town, and attended the courses of lectures given at the University. It was true there were inns, or halls, or hostels, as they were in some cases called, established in the process of time in the university towns, and in these young men were received; but these establishments were originally merely boarding houses, and did not approach the character of colleges, which they afterwards assumed at Oxford. Now, his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham), as he understood from his speech on Friday night, in point of fact, proposed giving facilities for founding these inns, or halls, in connexion with the new Colleges; and, therefore, the system now brought forward by Her Majesty's Government did not differ very far from that which existed in very early times, and in the first stages of the University of Oxford. But he hoped he would not be misunderstood. He was very well aware of the objections urged against the power proposed to be retained by the Government, of appointing and removing professors. He did not, however, for the present, go at all into that question, as he confined his remarks to the two questions of the provision for giving direct theological instruction to the young men educated in these Colleges, and of providing for their personal discipline and attention to morals. He wished, in the next place, briefly to allude to the plans proposed to be substituted by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, and by his noble Friend the Member for Newark. There were only four forms in which academical institutions could be established. The first of these to which he would refer, was that proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, namely, the establishment of academical institutions, with provision for religious education according to the tenets of the Established Church. His hon. Friend was attacked for proposing such a plan, on the ground that he would allow of no religious education except such as accorded with his own peculiar views. But it should be recollected that the religion of the State had a recognition and a standard in the law, and in the constitution of the Church; and he thought, therefore, that his hon. Friend was safe from the reproach of merely putting forth his own religious views in propounding the plan for which he had contended. Such a Bill would not, however, satisfy his noble Friend the Member for Newark (Lord John Manners). He should observe that he was not now stating what he thought would be the best and most desirable system of academical education, but merely what he considered the best system to be adopted under the peculiar circumstances with which they had to deal. The House might, it is true, state that they deemed it essential to unite religious instruction with the whole course of education in the case of every individual student, and that they would only pass a measure founded on that principle. That was the course advocated by his noble Friend. But what would be the result of the adoption of that view? They would have to consider how they were to apply such a principle to the state of things in Ireland. They should establish institutions for more than one religion, or else they would have to extract from all the religions existing in the country the points of doctrine that were common to the entire, and adopt them for their collegiate course. That was a dream indulged in by many good men, such as the late Dr. Arnold, who wished to establish such a system in the University of London. But the plan totally failed, and he should say that if the Government adopted any such course they would fail, and deservedly fail; for any attempt to frame and cut a new religion out of the immutable Christian faith, on a principle in which some men would be allowed to believe as little as they liked, would be most fatal both in its moral sense and in its relation to the moral character of the country. In dismissing this second plan he could not avoid saying that he thought his noble Friend the Member for Newark was more than necessarily severe in his comments on the course taken by the Government. He could not see anything so very insurmountable in the objection on which his noble Friend principally relied. He alluded to the question of personal instruction of the pupils. The objection of his noble Friend would be removed by a provision by the State for the payment of a Roman Catholic chaplain for each College; but when facilities were given for the founding of such chaplaincies by voluntary contributions, he did not think that any great difficulty could be said to exist in the way of a satisfactory arrangement as to this point. He should also beg to make an emphatic protest against the allegation put forth by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that the plan introduced by the Government was to be regarded as a "gigantic scheme of godless education." It was not fair of the hon. Baronet so to characterize the Bill; for though he was quite ready to admit that it did not contemplate the establishment of divinity professors or of theological lectures, yet it did recognize the great features of a religious instruction, for one of its clauses went to the direct end of providing rooms wherein divinity lectures might be delivered; and although he was quite ready to grant that the establishment of such a place for lectures was not to be regarded in the same light as the establishment of a divinity professorship, still it totally deprived the hon. Baronet of any just plea for applying the language he had used to the measure. His hon. Friend had likewise asserted that the measure would positively debar those who profited by the secular education which it was calculated to establish in Ireland, from obtaining any religious instruction whatever. Now, with respect to that objection, all he would say was, that if it were proposed to apply such a system of education to the case of paupers, who were wholly dependent upon the State for every species of instruction that they might require, then he should say that the proposed system was a decided evil; but the persons who were to derive the benefits of education under the present measure, had it in their power to resort to other sources for their religious instruction, which paupers at the entire disposition of the State could not have access to. And he would not only say that, but he would also assert that no person could be looked upon to have been properly trained or educated unless religious instruction formed a very distinct and marked branch of his education. But it was quite another question to say that a measure for promoting secular education was to be condemned and rejected because a person who, when called upon, was found ready to contribute to that purpose, refused to contribute to the religious instruction of those who were to benefit by it. There were other points of view in which the measure must be regarded. The noble Lord the Member for Newark had asked why the Government had refused to establish a Roman Catholic system of collegiate education for the laity in Ireland. If that plan were to be adopted, it followed, as a matter of necessity, that a Presbyterian system of education, and also in all probability an Arian system of education, must likewise be established. The Parliament was bound to consider the whole case, and not to look at one part only of it; and, viewing the matter in all its extent, he must say, that if the State acknowledged the necessity of adopting the scheme of a Roman Catholic collegiate establishment for Ireland it must look the question in the face, and avow the fairness and necessity of establishing an Arian, a Presbyterian, and a Trinitarian collegiate education, besides, possibly, many other religious denominations. He must say the adoption of such a plan would give a greater shock to the religious feelings of the people of England than any proposal which the Government had submitted to the consideration of the House; and, therefore, he had no hesitation in declaring it to be his opinion, that both in point of principle and in point of expediency, the plan proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Newark was far inferior to that of the Government. He thought also that the Government and the House would stand in a very strange position towards the people of England, if, with the pledges which had been given during the progress of the Maynooth Bill, the House were to consent to convert the present measure into one involving all the difficulties which the former Bill had avoided: and not only would they lay themselves open to the charge of being inconsistent, but they would also be obnoxious to the graver accusation of having deluded the people of England. He did not mean to say that these were any permanent or chief grounds of objection to the plan which he had adverted to; but under the circumstances they were not to be overlooked. With respect to the difficulties that had been urged on the part of the Roman Catholic body as to the appointment of the professors to certain chairs of philosophy in the Colleges to be established; he must say, that these were matters well worthy of consideration at a future stage of the Bill. He saw no difficulties in a scriptural point of view; but there were certainly chairs to be filled, which would require grave and deep consideration in making the appointments, more especially those relating to moral philosophy and metaphysics, which were treated by Roman Catholics in a very different form and spirit from that in which they were regarded in other creeds. But with respect to these difficulties, the question he had asked himself was, "are they insuperable—can they not be got rid of by means of a sincere, a friendly, a candid examination of them?" He did not mean to say that they did not exist, but he did think they might be got rid of, and on the grounds he had stated. He should, making a choice of difficulties, vote in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Wyse

said, that having troubled the House, when the Bill was first introduced, with remarks to some extent on the subject to which it referred, he would not again have trespassed on their indulgence, had not a demonstration of public feeling, to a certain degree adverse, since taken place in its regard. Two questions arose: first, as to whether there were not defects in the present measure; and, secondly, as to whether these defects were of that radical kind which would interfere with its principle, or its efficient working. With respect, then, to academical education, strictly so termed, the first question which necessarily attracted the attention of the inquirer would now be, whether the measure proposed really offered a proper and consistent system for its establishment and support? They should Consider whether it was not, as he had on a former evening stated it to be, defective in not providing a preliminary Course of education sufficiently extensive and general between it and elementary education; and, secondly, in not carrying it still further, until it reached university education, either by opening the University of Dublin, or by constituting these Colleges into a separate university of themselves. He regretted the Government had not announced in definite terms how far they intended to make the present measure a part of the great plan suggested by the Report of the Committee of that House in 1835. These, it would be perceived, were defects, arising not from too much, but too little: he complained not of its principle, far from it. The objections which had been urged against it had not altered one iota of his conviction of the great national advantages resulting from a mixed system of public education. But in saying this, he did not preclude himself from the right of objecting to any of the details of the mode in which the principle was proposed to be carried out. The admission of the necessity for academical education in Ireland by that House was, he thought, a great step in the onward march of educational reform. It recognized the necessity of paying attention, not only to the wants of the lower, but of the middle classes in regard to the subject of all intellectual and moral improvement. He did not agree with those who pronounced the plan to be "a gigantic scheme of godless education." Had he conceived it to be a system which would tend to irreligion, to the demoralization, direct or indirect, of Ireland, or of any persuasion or class in Ireland, he, for one, would at once have repudiated it. He differed from those who alleged that the Bill excluded religious instruction. The same assertion had been made with as much boldness, but upon as slight grounds, with respect to the national system of education. The Government had not excluded, on the contrary they had permitted, nay more, they had invited (by allowing the College rooms and College hours to be applied to the purpose), the communication of religious instruction in these Colleges. Nor was this all: they were willing to make this permanent, for they guaranteed the secure enjoyment of any endowment for such end, to the party or body by whom, or for whose benefit, it was intended or made. He was not quite so satisfied as to the grounds or statements on which this course rested. The Government objected to the establishment of chairs of theology upon the ground that it would not be consistent with their duty as the Government of a country containing different religious communities, to establish a professor for the purpose of giving instruction in a religion different from that which the State was supposed to profess. That argument, was, however, as he had said, by no means satisfactory to his mind. He found, in the conduct of the State, frequent exceptions to this presumed general rule at which he had hinted. He found exceptions to it in her Colonial policy — in the appointment of Catholic chaplains to regiments containing soldiers of that faith. There was a pointed exception to it in the Maynooth Bill, which had but a few days ago received the sanction of the House. In all these instances the general rule was widely departed from. He would not, therefore, object to the establishment of theological chairs upon the ground which he had stated. He would rather argue the point upon the difficulty of placing two or three professors of as many opposing religious systems in the same institution, and the possibility of giving rise to a series of controversies, injurious both to Christian peace and to the general tranquillity of the establishment. Still, however, he by no means admitted the probability of such occurrence. He hoped better things from the increased knowledge, wiser spirit, and kindlier temper of the present day. At the same time, he thought it right to draw a distinction between a chair of theology, properly so called, and that of religion. A professorship of the former was not suitable to the ends which the projected Colleges had in view. Theology was cultivated by Catholic and Protestant; but it was not merely religion, but the science of religion, special to, and peculiarly intended for the ecclesiastical professions connected with these different systems. But the study of religion, theoretic and practical, systematic and historic, was a study which ought never to be neglected by any one who wished to arrive at a true knowledge of the history of the progress of man. Such a chair, he thought, ought to exist, no matter whether endowed by the State or individuals. And he was not alone in this opinion. It was that even of M. Cousin, who had been so liberally, or rather so illiberally abused; and it was practically acted upon in the communal and royal schools of France. In the Prussian Gymnasia, too, twelve hours per week were allotted for instruction in religion and religious history. He thought it might be worthy of consideration whether such a chair should not be established by private efforts at once. He should prefer that course to Government endowment and Government control; and, for one, would be willing to contribute for such a purpose, stipulating, however, that the nomination of the professor should be in the hands of the bishop of the diocese. Another proposition upon this subject was, that the pupils attending such a class should pay for religious instruction in the form of fees. To this he entertained no objection; it did not call in the Government—it left the matter open to the particular creed and private contributions of each individual. With reference to the question of residence within the College walls, they ought to bear in mind the principal objects for which the institutions were to be founded. They were intended for the education not only of the higher, but of the middle classes, and not only in elegant literature and theoretic science, but in those great industrial branches of study calculated to prove of most service in the practical business of life. In order to carry out this object in the most efficient manner, they ought to be enabled to receive the greatest possible number of students at the cheapest possible rate. And this result, he believed, would be best secured by external residence. Various plans presented themselves for this purpose. They might live with their relatives, or guardians, or in houses, in the towns in which the Colleges were situated, which should be licensed for the purpose, and placed, to a certain extent, under College control; or chambers or halls might be built for their accommodation, placed also under the control of the College, and to which chaplains, might be allocated, to be appointed by the respective bishops, or other religious authority of the place, according to the constitution of the hall. Of these plans he gave a decided preference to the latter. There was hardly a foreign university to which such chambers, under the name of "Hospitia" or "Convictoria," were not attached. He thought, then, it would be worthy of consideration, whether a small additional grant might not be set apart for the construction of such chambers. Passing to another point of the subject, namely, the appointment of the professors, and what should be the condition of such appointment as to religious opinions, &c., he fully admitted the great importance, in every sense, of this question. The chair of religion, it was already admitted, ought to be exclusively in the appointment of the spiritual heads of the religion to which it belonged. This arose out of the very nature of such a chair; and any other course would be an absurdity, and something worse—a crime. But there were other chairs, which also, by their nature, participated in the character of the chair of religion. Moral philosophy, for instance, or ethics, was necessarily connected with religion. It formed an essential part of it in every persuasion; and of course was, more or less, affected by the peculiar creed of each. In like manner, metaphysics lay at the bottom of moral philosophy; whilst the philosophy of history was the exemplification in action of all three. It was quite natural, therefore, that if it were indispensable to admit in the first instance separate chairs of religion, lest any offence should be given to consciences, it would not be less so, on the same ground, to admit separate chairs of metaphysics, moral philosophy, and the philosophy of history, or rather one separate chair for all three combined. Here, however, he would stop; for the exclusive appointment for Catholics of Catholic professors of anatomy, geology, &c., called for by the Catholic bishops, rested on very different grounds. They had no necessary connexion with religion, and such control was demanded from the apprehension only that they might interfere. If so, they might be dismissed by the governing body. The point, then, was, to attain such a governing body as could and would dismiss them, if circumstances required. For the obtaining such, no one would go farther than he would. He thought, upon this point alone depended the whole character, for good or evil, of the proposed system. He thought, this point once secured, would go farther to protect against the evils apprehended, than all the minute classifications in the world, whether of admissions or exclusions in respect of faith. Whatever line of this nature were drawn, he much feared it would err on one side or the other: it would take in too little or too much. If it were essential for the purity of Catholic faith and morals, that the professors of geology and anatomy should be Catholic; why should it not be equally necessary that those of chemistry and astronomy should also be Catholic? and if these were granted, where were they to stop? Similar demands might be made in reference to other, if not all of the chairs. As to the appointment of professors being exclusively placed in the hands of Government for the future, as at present, he could not consent to it. He thought that if they desired to have professors of eminence, a great portion of their usefulness, they must remember, and of their eminence, would depend upon their public character, which again would depend upon their independence being placed even beyond the shadow of a suspicion. He did not say that the Government would make a bad selection in the exercise of this power; but under a system by which this power was conferred upon the Government, the professors chosen would often, without cause, be liable to mistrust. Were the contrary course to be pursued, were it known that men could obtain professorships by their own exertions, they not only would obviate these objections, and secure competent professors, but would speedily raise up, independently of any recurrence through Parliamentary or other influence to the existing Government, a class of students aiming at that high position—a class the creation of which could not fail of being of the greatest literary and scientific benefit to the community at large. He could not consent, therefore, to the appointment of professors, exclusively and permanently, by the Crown; nor did he find that that principle had been acted upon, without great qualifications, in the ancient or modern colleges of England or Scotland; nor did it prevail unconditionally either in France or in Prussia. With regard to the proposition for the formation of a board for each province—formed, among others, ex officio, of the bishops of the diocese—he was not prepared to pronounce any decided opinion as to how it would work; but he should fear that if it necessarily must embrace all, and it be ex officio, the machine would not only be a difficult one to set in action, but would not be worked, for a continuance, either with advantage to the ecclesiastical body, to the laity, or the institutions themselves. He had now stated his approval of the principle of the measure—his approval of the intentions of Government—and also, he trusted fairly, the objections which he entertained to the mode in which both were in some particulars carried out in the provisions of the Bill. With reference to the opening of the University of Dublin, and, with proper reservations, of Trinity College, he would do all he could for the attainment of that great end. The Irish, Catholic, and Dissenter, could not be said to be in the full enjoyment of educational freedom, or of general political and religious equality, until some such measure should have been adopted. He wished for nothing exclusive. He did not wish either for an exclusive Catholic, or for an exclusive Presbyterian, and why then for an exclusive Protestant University? At the same time he should not be justified in refusing to accept of the Colleges, because no University was offered to them at the present moment, more than he would have been, some years ago, in refusing to accept a scheme of elementary education, because the Colleges were still withheld. Still less should he be discharging his duty to his country—a duty earlier and higher than any duty to party —by declining the gift, from dislike or apprehension of the givers from whom it came. Whatever was offered in a wholesome spirit for the education of the people, would receive his cordial support, whoever might chance to be its promoters, from whatever side of the House it might proceed.

Mr. Acland

said, he had pledged himself on a former occasion to give his best attention to the measure of the Government, and to apply himself more particularly to the means by which it intended to carry out its objects. He felt, in some respects, supported in the view which he was on the whole disposed to take, by the circumstance that no speaker in favour of the measure upon his side of the House, had given anything like an unqualified approbation of it. Much in the manner of the last speaker, they left the Bill, like the horse's tail in the story, when every hair had been plucked out separately until the stump alone was left. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. Wyse) had found fault with the patronage being invested alone in the Government, as well as with the power of removal of the professors, which the Bill conferred upon Her Majesty's Government. There had been a reiteration of the assurance that this measure was founded upon a sound principle; and it was upon that very assurance he confessed that his vote would depend that night. He had been disposed to give credit to that assurance, in the first instance, because the measure had been brought forward by a Conservative Government. Although persons in power might assure their supporters that a measure which was looked on with suspicion by many was founded upon sound principles, it still became hon. Members, who were neither in place, nor looking up to it, to examine such a measure scrupulously. In adopting a recommendation of the Committee upon the subject of education, which had reported in the year 1826 that any system of education which could be applicable to Ireland must be that from which all suspicion should be banished, it appeared to him that the right hon. Baronet had adopted it in a different sense from that which it bore. He (Mr. Acland) was convinced that it would be absurd to attempt any general system of education in Ireland, unless it was concurred in by the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland; but, so far from that being the case, this Bill had met with an united and unanimous protest from the Roman Catholic bishops; and when he saw [...]t the foot of that protest; the name of Archbishop Murray, he felt at once that it could not be regarded as a document emanating from political agitators. The right hon. Member for Waterford had taken an active part in the Central Education Society, and had obtained a Committee in that House to inquire into the subject of education. Among the witnesses produced before that Committee, was Mr. Simpson, who declared, that he would not inquire even whether a teacher of an elementary school was of any or no religion—that he would dismiss him for meddling any way in the matter. Evidence to the same extent was given by other members of that society; and these opinions seemed to be adopted in the Government Bill, in which there was taken a power of removal—if the teachers infused any of their own faith into their teaching—a power which was to be exercised by the Home Office. He was not convinced that this Bill, nurtured in the Offices of the Government, and introduced without communication with the bishops of the United Church of England and Ireland, or consultation with the heads of those who had the confidence of the great body of the Irish people, would succeed, and he should therefore vote against the second reading. With respect to the question of mixed and separate education, he did not think that the question turned so much upon those who were to receive that education, as upon those who were to give it. He had always advocated the system of separate education as opposed to mixed education. And how had the system of united education worked in Belfast? A short time after the establishment of the mixed system there a complaint was made (so we understood) that the professors were teaching Arianism. The system of the Scotch Universities, and of the University College, London, had been appealed to in favour of this Bill. With regard to the Scotch system, though the pupils were mixed, the professors were of one faith, and, with all deference to his northern friends, he preferred the system of the Universities of England and of Dublin to that of Scotland. As to University College, London, that was no case in point; for it was not founded by the State, but by men of different shades of religion, who came to that as a compromise; and even then, the result of the plan had been that a second institution, partaking of the collegiate character, had been formed; and then the examining board was superadded for those two and other bodies—it was no case in point for this legislative measure. He had heard on Friday night, with great pain, an attack made upon the system pursued at the Universities with respect to religious instruction. He could bear his own testimony that great improvements had taken place in that respect during his residence in one of those Universities. With respect to religious instruction at the University of Oxford in his day, that instruction was as full and as complete as could be required by any Christian gentleman called upon to fill any station in Church or State. He referred, especially to his excellent tutor the Bishop of Sodor and Man, and to the amiable and much beloved Bishop of Ripon, as having been instrumental in bringing about a better state of things in the College to which he belonged. He had already stated that he thought an attempt ought to have been made to secure the co-operation of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland to promote this Bill. He thought that a fair attempt should be made to induce the various religious bodies in the land, interested in educating the different classes of the people in their own flock, to co-operate to promote the success of a measure of this kind. He thought that an attempt should be made to induce them to set on foot voluntary establishment for the promotion of religious instruction in connexion with those establishments—institutions in which moral and religious discipline should be maintained and enforced. He believed if Government had left the matter to the voluntary liberality of the inhabitants, that both the members of the Protestant Church and the Roman Catholics would have willingly come forward and established theological chairs; to which the Government might with a better grace have added chairs for the teaching of secular knowledge. This was, indeed, only saying, in other words, what had already been formally proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Newark. He thought the principles involved in this measure to be so important, he felt it his bounden duty to enter his protest in the strongest manner he could against it, and especially because it was brought forward by the Government as a measure resting on sound principles. He did not wish to see such principles introduced into England—the principles of a negation of religion, and of putting the teachers of secular knowledge under the control of the Government. For that Government, as at present constituted, he entertained the highest feelings of regard, though he differed from them in some particulars; but he did not know how soon they might be displaced, or who might occupy their places.

Mr. More O'Ferrall

felt, as one intimately connected with Ireland, that he ought to express his opinion on this question. The present measure, and that for the endowment of the College of Maynooth, had been introduced in such a manner, that if he differed partly from the principle, and generally from the details of the present Bill, he came to that conclusion with extreme regret. He fully admitted the great difficulty the Government had to contend with; but he could assure them, if they felt those difficulties, that they were also felt by others, and especially by those connected with the Irish representation. The great difficulty of the Government was to be found in a cause which it was impossible to remove. It was to be found in the great distrust with which the whole Roman Catholic population regarded the Government. If that distrust existed with regard to political questions, it was enhanced when they came to deal with those questions which touched religion. It must be admitted that the policy of the present Government had been, like that of its predecessors, to undermine, weaken, and destroy the Catholic religion. The hon. Member for Wigan used a strong expression with regard to the Resolutions put forward by the Roman Catholic prelates. He did not go the length of those rev. Prelates; but their protest must be taken as a short expression of that distrust which prevailed throughout the body of the Catholics. It was said the Catholics were satisfied with the system of national education. Why not with this? Let them consider the national system, and the difference would soon be seen. The Government appointed ten Commissioners, six being Protestants, and only four Catholics? Let it be recollected that the Catholic body made a great concession in saying that a mixed system could be well conducted under a Board in which the Protestants were as six to four. But they felt that every rank of the Catholics was represented in that Board. Now, it was that Board which appointed the professors and the teachers, which regulated the system of instruction, and which possessed the power of withdrawing the salary of the master if he violated the principles on which the institution was founded. Let them compare such a measure, which gave the Catholics real securities against any tampering with their religious opinions, with the proposed Government Bill. The Government was Protestant, and was likely to continue so; and it was that Government which appointed teachers and professors intended for a majority of the Irish Catholic people. Again, under the national system, the child lived with his parents, and was under the religious guardianship of his parish priest; but, in the proposed Colleges, the youths attending them might be left, at a time when they were most subject to temptation, beyond the control of any religious authority of their own Church whatever. There were two objections to the measure: the want of religious education, and the imparting secular instruction without moral training. The right hon. Baronet said, the want of moral training might be supplied by the application of the voluntary principle, in allowing Roman Catholics to endow religious professorships. But that was what they were quite unable to supply. The yearly amount now expended by them in the support of their Church was upwards of 700,000l. If you could not give the Roman Catholics religious education, that might be a good reason for refraining from endowing colleges at all; but there could be nothing more dangerous than educating the middle classes of Ireland without the restraints of religious teaching and moral training. If you attempted a measure of this kind at all, you ought to do it well; if not, it would be better to leave the subject unsettled, and wait for the course of events. With regard to Trinity College, if you meant to have separate education for all sects, it might be proper to leave the institution on its present footing; but if it were determined to have mixed education, and yet to maintain that University in its present exclusive arrangements, you did that which would be felt as a great injustice by the Roman Catholics. If the Roman Catholics were placed on the same footing with Protestants in that College, they would be perfectly satisfied, provided that securities were given for the religious training of youth at the Colleges. He should be happy to give his support to the measure, if a reasonable expectation were held out that the objections he felt to it were removed; but otherwise, he should be obliged to vote against the second reading.

Sir R. Peel

Sir, I certainly thought, until I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Mr. Acland), that whatever difference of opinion may prevail upon the details of this measure, there had been a general concurrence in one sentiment—that if we could overcome the difficulties which arise from different religious creeds, an extension of academical education in Ireland would be a great advantage to that country. I understand from my hon. Friend, that that part of the case has been left wholly imperfect, that the benefit remains not yet established, and that he very much doubts whether there is that necessity, or that any great advantage will be derived, which is alleged on behalf of the institution of academical institutions in Ireland. Sir, I assume now that we can overcome the difficulties in respect to religious differences; and I should have thought there would have been a general concurrence in this, that looking at the state of Ireland, the extent of its population, the ample provision of academical instruction made in this part of the United Kingdom, its gradual extension in Oxford, Cambridge, University College, King's College, Durham—all proceeding upon the recognition of this principle—that academical institutions do conduce to the cause of sound learning and social improvement—looking again at Scotland, and seeing there a limited population, and not less than four or five academical institutions, dispensing advantages to the inhabitants of that country, and even of Ireland, some of whom are forced to resort thither; looking at these things, I should have thought we might take it for granted, that sound academical institutions would be an advantage to Ireland. According to the last Return its population was upwards of 8,000,000; it is now, I believe, nearly, if not quite, 9,000,000. I look, then, to the provision already made for education in Ireland. Maynooth gives no advantage to the laity; Dublin College provides education for about 100 or 120 Roman Catholics; and in the Belfast Academical Institution there may be twelve or fourteen Catholics. Now, I look at the population of Ireland—at the number of the Catholics in Leinster, Munster, and Connaught; and I ask whether the necessity for academical education is not sufficiently established by adverting to the facts, without adding any argument? But, if you want further proof, what have we done for the education of children there? We are now educating 400,000 in the national schools alone; we are giving them, I believe, an excellent education: it continues till they are of the age of twelve or fourteen—a most important period of life, when they are hardly qualified to be sent into the world, yet the superintendence over their education ceases then; and only the imperfect provision I have adverted to is made for academical training. The parents send them to Scotland. Will you not try, if possible, to provide in their own country the means of academical education? I hold in my hand a work familiar to all connected with Ireland—one of the best and ablest, because one of the most practical works I have ever seen, connected with the improvement of Ireland—the work of a very eminent man—Dr. Kane, a Roman Catholic. I heard with surprise and regret that professors of geology must be distrusted, if the youth they educate are of a different religious creed from themselves; that is not our doctrine. We have recently established a geological department; we want to make that science subservient to the improvement of agriculture, and the advance of manufactures. We looked for a man to whom we could entrust that department, and we have had no such doubts: we have not thought Dr. Kane disqualified from giving lectures on geology because he is a Roman Catholic; and the gentleman we have selected within the last two months to preside over this new department of knowledge, to instruct the people of Ireland in the means of improving and developing the great resources of that country, and to give these lectures to the whole people of Ireland without exception, is this Roman Catholic gentleman; and I venture to say he will not pervert the powers we have given him to undermine the faith of any of his scholars. Now, what is the opinion of Dr. Kane, after having written fully and ably on the industrial resources of Ireland. He gives his general opinion with respect to the improvement of that country in his concluding chapter; and he says— The extent and quality of our supplies of fuel, the distribution and amount of our sources of water power, the locality of our mines of copper and other useful metals, have engaged attention, as well as the condition of the soil, the amount of its produce, and the general principles upon which its cultivation will remunerate. With such elements of prosperity lying at our hands, it becomes a problem of high importance to resolve why they have not been made available, and why this country has been left behind by other nations, whose natural circumstances are in few instances superior, but in many particulars certainly less advantageous. The writer then proceeded to solve the problem, why, with all these advantages, Ireland was still backward in material comfort compared with the other European nations. It was, he said, an erroneous conception that her people were inferior, morally or physically, to those of any other country; and he deprecated the idea that it was the want of capital—English capital — adding interjectionally that English capital was the bugbear of Irish prosperity. The real cause, he argued, of the backwardness of Ireland was the want of industrial knowledge among her inhabitants. England had no more capital than Ireland before her industrial knowledge was developed; and in Ireland, as well as it had done in that country, capital would follow the application of science to the development of the natural and material resources of Ireland. And he concluded by laying it down, as an indisputable position, that collegiate establishments which would give to men of all creeds the aid of professors of science, were the best if not the only means of effecting that most desirable object. That was written before collegiate establishments were spoken of in this House. That is my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, when he tells me that it is yet to be proved that there is any social advantage in extending the means of academical education in Ireland. I think a large majority of this House will admit that it is a great end to be attained, considering the want of education among the youths advanced beyond the age of childhood; and that it is an object not lightly to be abandoned. But, surely, this also will be admitted, that that education ought, if possible, to be given in common. We should be counteracting the object for which we founded the national system of education, where the youths are educated in common, if, after having made those acquaintances in early life, and formed that bond of connexion which united education establishes, we were to interrupt it just when they are on the threshold of life, and say to them, "You who were educated together in schools, must now no longer be educated together." But if I am to plant new academical institutions here and there throughout Ireland, making each of them of an exclusive character, with professors of their own faith, of course I shall have an exclusive and separate education in each, and I must forego the advantages I hope to gain. I should relinquish, with the deepest regret, the prospect of having education in common for the Protestant, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic youth of Ireland. I wish, then, to establish first the policy of having academical institutions in Ireland on a more extensive scale, and next to have the means of educating there together the youth of Ireland. Now, how can this be done without, at the same time disregarding that which I admit, at the outset, to be of the utmost importance—the imparting to them a sound religious training, according to their principles? I say at once, that I found and justify a departure from that solely on the peculiar circumstances of Ireland. I admit, at once, that I think the system we propose inapplicable to England and Scotland; but, if we are to have academical institutions in Ireland, I see no other mode of securing that advantage but by the establishment of some such system as this. I justify it by the peculiar and unfortunate character of the religious differences which there exist. What, then, is the proposal we make? That the State should afford the means of excellent secular instruction; that we should have professors of high character, moral and scientific, giving excellent secular education to the youth of Ireland. Do I so disregard religion? Do I so relegate religion from these Colleges? Do I undervalue the importance of connecting education, for the Roman Catholic as well as the Protestant youth, with religious instruction? Far from it. I think it would be imperfect if there were such a disconnexion. I concur with the noble Lord Lord J. Russell), that if I can have nohing but improved secular instruction, I would rather have that than ignorance; but certainly I should feel, that pure secular instruction, without any provision for religious instruction, was but a partial and imperfect training. What course then shall we take? Shall we endow theological professors in each of these institutions? If we do, it is quite clear that the Established Church will have an equal claim with the Roman Catholics, to have their professors of divinity and metaphysics endowed; and how could we reject the claim? Now, first of all, I will address myself to those on this side of the House, who oppose the measure. Suppose we had taken that course—would it have been palatable to them? Would my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, who calls this "a gigantic scheme of godless education," have supported that plan of extending religious education for Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Presbyterian youth? My hon. Friend would have said—"This is a covert mode of providing endowment for the Roman Catholic Church. You have no such reason as you had at Maynooth; there is no grant existing for fifty years; here is a novel endowment of a Roman Catholic professor. I charge you not only with making a provision for the Roman Catholic Church, but with an utter and manifest indifference to all religions; for, whether they be Roman Catholics, or Presbyterians, or members of the Established Church, here they have their professors of metaphysics, and moral philosophy, and divinity, and all are put upon a footing." My hon. Friend smiles complacently; and I am sure, with that fairness and candour which attract for him the respect of all, he will admit that I have stated what would have been his speech. What would my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Spooner) have said? "What! found a professor for the propagation of 'that awful delusion,' which you dignify with the name of religion?" Should I not have been met on this side of the House with the most decided opposition, partaking of the character of that which was offered to the institution of Maynooth, but supported by many arguments which could not there be alleged? Now, I turn to the Roman Catholics, and I very much doubt whether that arrangement would have been satisfactory to them. I can quite understand their acquiescing in the youth receiving education from a professor of mathematics, or of any abstract science, provided by the Government; but if the Government founded and endowed a professor of divinity, and especially if it subjected him to any sort of control, I question whether many of the Roman Catholic body would have connected themselves with the institution. I doubt whether they would not have said—"Our religion is independent of the State; scientific knowledge we are willing to receive, education in common we approve, but we will not permit, even by endowment, any interference with a thing so sacred as the spiritual education of our own youth." But do I "endanger faith or morals," by inviting Roman Catholics and Protestants to make provision for the education of their youth? Now, observe what was the original proposal of the hon. Gentleman; it was that the Government should only partially contribute to the institution of these Colleges; and that the counties, by their grand juries, should provide a liberal sum; and the aid of Government be made dependent upon the voluntary contributions. Now, we have said—"We will be at the charge of establishing these institutions; we will construct the requisite buildings; we will provide liberal endowments for the scientific professors; we will not call upon the grand juries for local contributions: we will commute that demand for a demand upon the voluntary contributions of those who are mainly interested in the religious instruction of these youths, namely, their friends and parents." Even if we were to leave them to found the professorship of moral philosophy as well as of divinity, how small a charge would it be upon such a community, either the Roman Catholic or the Protestant! Do we banish religion from these institutions? No; but we invite the parents and friends to make provision for religious education, sanctioning and encouraging it, and affording means for it; and I have the strongest impression that that education will be more effectually given by leaving it to the natural friends and protectors of the youth in a country so circumstanced, than if the Government were to appoint a theological professor. Now, as to moral discipline, I attach the utmost importance to it. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last says that youth will be in peril for want of it; why should not their parents and guardians undertake it? How much more easy is it for them than for us? How is the religious and moral instruction of a boy at Harrow conducted? It is not done by the head master reading lectures to him, and establishing a minute scrutiny over him; but the parents fix upon a tutor of good character residing there, and commit the boy to his charge, and entrust him with parental authority and control over the youth. Why should not the same course be taken in these institutions? What is the course taken at the Liverpool and Bristol Institutions? I have the papers of those academical institutions before me. I see among the list of the professors the names of those who are willing to take boys under their private care; and there are clergymen and teachers, through whose supervision religious instruction may be given to the scholars. Now, if you wish to have religious instruction given to the pupils in these academical institutions, provided it be done with the full consent of the natural guardians of the child, there is nothing in the Bill to interfere with such an arrangement. I apprehend that parents will ascertain the character of the tutor, and place their children under his care, for the purpose of having their moral and religious improvement attended to; and that in this way, by a sort of common consent, the moral and religious instruction of the child will be attended to. I will suppose a town, with ten or twelve eminent professors, selected with the greatest care, giving lectures in that town, and setting an example of moral conduct; and that there are 300 or 400 pupils attached to the institution. Then am I to be seized with the utmost alarm with respect to the moral conduct of those youths? But if I look to the occupations of these youths on the banks of Loch Carrib—if I think what ought to be the real moral control which is to be exercised over them—if I see how they spend their week, I must own that the alarm of introducing them to ten or twelve scientific men of high moral conduct, and the apprehension as to the consequence to the morals of these youths, are very much overrated. To show how far the predictions may be expected to be realized, in consequence of Roman Catholics or Protestants hearing scientific lectures from eminent professors of a different faith to their own, I will refer to an institution which was sanctioned by Parliament in the year 1810—the Academical Institution at Belfast. In that year was passed, "An Act to incorporate and regulate an Institution to be called the Belfast Academical Institution, for affording youth a classical and mercantile education." It provided no religious test for the professors; it provided no religious instruction which the managers would not undertake to provide. I know that at a subsequent period difficulties arose in the management of the affairs of that institution; but that was because they were a proprietary body, and there was no control on the part of Parliament over them. But on the point in question, I will call in the evidence of a witness than whom there can be none more unsuspected or impartial in such a case—the Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland, Dr. Crolly. This institution gave good secular education; but it went upon the principle of permitting the parents and guardians of youth to give their religious education as they pleased. Dr. Crolly was asked, "Have you been at Belfast for any length of time?" He answers, "Yes; I was parish priest there for nearly thirty years." He is asked, "whether he knew that any Roman Catholics attended the Belfast Academical Institution?" He says, "They did." Now, the Belfast professors were mostly Presbyterians, who are more opposed to the faith and discipline of Roman Catholics than we of the Established Church. But I want to show you that the professors, instead of perverting the faith of those committed to their charge, and seeking to undermine their religious principles, were men of great scientific attainments, who viewed with kindness those placed under their care, and acted towards them with great delicacy. My hon. Friend says, that we should try to enforce our doctrines upon others on all occasions. I differ from him; I would say to the professors, it is not your duty, considering your difference of religious creed, to seek opportunities for undermining the faith of those committed to your charge. That was the resolution to which these men came. Looking at the variety of creeds of those whom they had to instruct, they bound themselves by resolutions that they would not seek to convert them from the Roman Catholic faith. And what is the testimony of Archbishop Crolly, who now presides over the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland? I want to adduce facts to show you that we are better than you suppose us to be. Dr. Crolly is asked— It is hardly necessary to inquire from you whether there is any danger of the religious principles of Roman Catholics being interfered with in any way by their attendance at the Belfast Institution?" He says—"No; I do not think there is. Some Roman Catholic gentlemen sent their sons to this institution; and, though they were not of my parish or diocese, they were obliged to attend public worship in my parish. These observations lead me to think that the masters of these institutions directed the attention of their Roman Catholic pupils to their moral and religious duties; and, that, so far from attempting to proselyte, they were honourable men, who felt that they had other business than that of undermining the faith of the Roman Catholic youth. Dr. Crolly is asked— Have you ever heard complaints, that the attendance of Roman Catholics on the institution was attended with any danger to their faith?" He replies—"Never. If I had, I should have interfered to prevent it; but I never apprehended, in the slightest degree, anything of the sort. He states that the religious instruction which the pupils received was that derived by their attending at the explanation of the catechism and public worship in their own places. But, at the worst, a zealous Roman Catholic might say, "I will not permit these youths to be brought up in ignorance of religious truths. I will write to their parents on the subject; I will volunteer my services; I will see that the means of religious instruction are provided for them." But you will endow religious professorships; and have too much respect for, and too much confidence in, the importance that you attach to religion to believe that you will neglect any necessary provision of the kind. Dr. Crolly says— I am personally acquainted with several of the professors." And he is asked—"Have any of those professors conducted themselves in any way offensive towards Roman Catholics? Now, here is the Roman Catholic testimony which is given in answer to that question— No; quite the contrary. Some of the professors requested that I would revise some copies of the Roman Catholic Scriptures for the use of the Roman Catholic pupils; and, though they are ministers of the Presbyterian Church, I believe they have paid proper and respectful attention to the religious principles of the Roman Catholic scholars. Here, then, is Irish religious experience, and I place that in juxtaposition with your fears for the future. I believe that that which has happened in Belfast will happen again, if we are careful with respect to the selection of professors. These are facts in favour of communions of different sects, and united education. The difference between these proposed institutions and that of Belfast is, that in the latter there were theological professors endowed by the State, giving it a sectarian cast. Yet Dr. Crolly, in 1827, held an opinion in favour of the plan of Roman Catholic youths being educated there, the principle being recognised that each party should be religiously instructed according to the wish of his parents. I confess I was surprised, and seldom have I been more surprised, when I perused that public document recently set forth, wherein it is contended that a Roman Catholic pupil cannot receive instruction through lectures given by a professor of geology, or of anatomy, or of history, except he be a Roman Catholic professor. It is urged, I know, that it would be dangerous to their faith. Well, if that means that there is a tendency to infidelity in the study of geology, or of anatomy, or in the professors of them, I think that both Protestants and Roman Catholics stand upon the same footing in that respect. But, if I listen to a professor who lectures upon any science, does the difference of his faith from mine expose me to so much danger that my exalted ideas of religion, and my well-grounded belief, are to be overturned by that association? I have a higher opinion of science. But will a man who is selected by the Crown for that important trust, a man eminent in his sphere, after he has developed to his pupil the mysterious mechanism of the human eye, or the wonderful and perpetual working of the human heart, end his description, by which he enlarges the mind and expands the intellect of his pupil, with a weak attempt to disown the great Maker of all? Or, can you suppose that a professor will terminate an anatomical lecture with a sly sarcasm against Martin Luther, or a covert attack upon the Council of Trent? Such a thing is really ridiculous. I cannot conceive, that after an astronomical lecture a professor would take advantage of the power of his position, considering the conditions on which he accepts his office, for the purpose of undermining the faith and corrupting the morals of his scholars. Would a Roman Catholic, were a second Newton to arise, refuse to receive lectures in astronomy from such a man? Look at the magnificent conclusions he draws as to the omnipotence and omnipresence of the Deity. Can a man descend from such lofty sublimities to the paltry effort of corrupting the faith of some one of his listening pupils? It is not credible? Therefore I say, that the Roman Catholic and the Protestant have an equal guarantee against the propagation of infidelity in these institutions. But it is objected that these professors are to be exclusively in the nomination of the Crown. Why, that certainly is the case at present; for great care must necessarily be exercised at first in their selection. It is also said there is no public trial. But if, hereafter, this should be found inexpedient, I do not know that it will be contrary to the principle of the Bill to have a change in that respect. Let it not be supposed, however, that the utmost care will not be taken in selecting proper persons for those institutions, which are to be established in the Roman Catholic provinces of Munster and Connaught. I very much fear—notwithstanding all the pains that may be taken to secure men of distinguished reputation and of qualifications of the highest order—that the most eminent men, being those generally speaking, who are the most advanced in life, will be the least inclined to come forward, and the most disposed to shun competition. Before I sit down I should wish to mention one point which seems to me not to have been noticed by my right hon. Friend—I mean exhibitions. It has been thought—and, as it appears to me, on very good ground — that they would greatly stimulate industry and promote sound learning. It has been, I regret to observe, made a matter of complaint that those who have brought forward this measure have made no declaration as to the establishment of a University. Now I do think that under present circumstances it would be premature to make any declaration upon that subject. I think it is a question which ought to be left for mature deliberation; thus much, however, I may venture to say, that I think it would, on the whole, be better to form a university by the union of the three Colleges, than to attempt to establish three by erecting each College into a university; considerations of this kind, however, will come time enough. If these Colleges are found to work well—if they merit and obtain the confidence of the people of Ireland—we then can proceed to do whatever may be necessary with respect to a university, because some time hence will clearly be the fittest for its consideration: for those reasons we think it quite as well to make no declarations on this point. The Crown possesses the power of incorporating these Colleges into a university whenever the necessity arises, and it can be done without the aid of Parliament. It will then, I think, be admitted that this plan is extensive, though it does not embrace all that it might be possible to include. These, then, are the general principles upon which this measure has been submitted to the House. On the whole we have thought that it was the best which we could at present produce; that considering the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, we stood a better chance of success with a system in which religious education would be placed on the footing now proposed, than by attempting to form separate theological establishments, or by appointing separate theological professors in each College. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford says that he will not support any but a system of education based upon religion; that he will support nothing without religious instruction. But I am sure my hon. Friend will feel himself bound in candour to admit that by religious instruction he must mean instruction according to the principles, doctrine, and discipline of the Church of England. That must be his plan—consistently with himself he could adopt no other; but for our parts, we should rather abandon the scheme altogether than attempt to establish in the south and west of Ireland Colleges upon the principles of the Church of England. I know this plan of ours has been objected to by high authority in the Roman Catholic Church. I will add, however, that notwithstanding this, and notwithstanding some opposition on the part of the laity, there is every reason to believe that amongst respectable and intelligent men of all classes there exists a strong disposition to accept this proposition. My belief is that the national system can be carried out for the benefit of the Roman Catholic youth of Ireland. My belief is that the effect of improved education will be to soften the asperities which arise in Ireland on account of religious differences — differences which greatly embitter social life in Ireland. In the words of a celebrated writer, I will say, that this plan is well calculated to lay a foundation for developing those natural and national resources with which that country abounds—to develope them not so much by the introduction of fresh capital into that country, as by that cultivation of industrial and scientific knowledge, combined with religious instruction, which it is the object of this Bill to establish.

Mr. Morgan J. O'Connell

begged the attention of the House whilst he stated briefly the grounds on which he should vote, as he felt compelled to differ from those with whom he generally acted. The question raised was, as to the principle of a system of mixed education. He had always been in favour of mixed education in Ireland; he had himself received the benefits of a mixed education, which had enabled him to see that the Roman Catholics had nothing to fear from any attempts to undermine their faith on the part of the Protestants. The main truths of Christianity were common to them all; and what they most wanted was charity towards one another. The principle of this Bill was that which had revolutionized Ireland, the principle of extending secular education unaccompanied with religious instruction. To that principle he would give his support; the moral movement in Ireland owed its force to the education of youth in the national schools, by supplying them with occupations which led them away from the social excitements in which they had before indulged. Upon this ground he should support the second reading; but be entertained some objections to the details of this Bill, so strong that he could not undertake to vote for any subsequent stage, unless it should be altered in those respects. With regard to the endowment of halls, he thought that would be liable to strong objections on the part of the community to which he (Mr. J. M. O'Connell) belonged. Upon the whole, he thought it preferable to allow these things to be done by voluntary contributions. He acknowledged that in this, as well as in other respects, a desire had been shown on the part of the Government to promote the interests of the people of Ireland; but as the transactions of last year could not be readily forgotten, he thought there would be some distrust felt in leaving the appointment of professors in the hands of the Government. After all, perhaps, it was better to leave this matter to the Government, provided some hope was held out that hereafter those appointments should be the rewards of scientific and literary attainments. The hon. Gentleman expressed his hope that Trinity College would be opened to persons of all denominations.

Mr. Shaw

, before the debate closed, would ask the House to allow him to state, in a few words, the reason of the vote be would give on that occasion. He thought increased facilities for the education of the middle classes in Ireland were much required. His hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) had made and observation, as to the general supporters of the second reading, which would apply to him (Mr. Shaw). He could not support the present scheme as by any means a perfect system of education—but he did not understand it as professing to be so—and as no one who had spoken in opposition to it had suggested what he (Mr. Shaw) could regard as a less objectionable plan for the purpose, and he was not prepared to propose one—he felt that under all the circumstances and admitted difficulties of the case, he could not refuse a vote in favour of the second reading of the measure then brought before the House upon the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. In reference to an observation of his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) that these Colleges would probably be in some time united into one university, he (Mr. Shaw) was of opinion that the institutions to be founded by the Bill would be more in the nature of large public day schools, than what could be properly termed Colleges—if that implied academical instruction in the generally understood sense. He did not say this for the purpose of depreciating the scheme, nor from any theoretical view, so much as from some personal and practical knowledge of the wants of Ireland in respect of education. He thought the gentry generally would still send their sons to the University of Dublin, not only from the prestige belonging to an ancient establishment, but that it could be accomplished without much difficulty or expense; and while he admitted there was a deficiency of useful education for the middle classes—he thought, so far from there being an insufficiency in the supply of strictly academical or university advantages, that they rather exceeded the demand—that there were more graduates from the University of Dublin than the professions could draw off; and as regarded comparison with England, he doubted whether there was not a larger proportion of the same class graduating in Ireland than in this country. He expected that, on the whole, fewer probably in number would come up to the University at Dublin, when supplied with a suitable education nearer home; but that the most advanced and distinguished of the pupils of the new Colleges or schools would be sent forward to the University. He considered that that would be more for the advantage of society in Ireland generally, and also in some degree meet the difficulty of the absence of a provision for religious superintendence, which would be insuperable it the young men were to be collected together and domiciled in a University. Upon that point a parallel had been attempted between the proposed system and that of Dublin; but it was to be borne in mind that in Trinity College, Dublin, that was only the exception in case of dissenters from the Established Church, while the rule and the principle of the establishment, which was one essentially connected with the Church, was, that all its members should be taught the tenets and submit to the discipline of the Established Church. He could not agree with his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) that the system of the proposed Colleges was similar to that of the National Board. The difficulties might be of the same character, but the difference was in the way the Government had attempted to deal with them. In the case of the board, the Government had tried to regulate the religious instruction, and failed—and here he (Mr. Shaw) believed they would have failed too, if they had made the same attempt. There the Government had repudiated the doctrine of the freedom and sufficiency of the Scriptures held by Protestants, and adopted the Roman Catholic doctrine, that the Scriptures were only to be read under license, and not during the school hours—and that had been the principal cause of separation from the system. Practically, too, the case was very different; for previously to that system the Scriptures had been almost universally read in all the schools for the children of the poor in Ireland. While in such large day schools, as the present would be for the upper and middle classes, the religious instruction was virtually left to the parents and guardians out of school; and, therefore, he thought, the religious question involved of infinitely more importance in the case of the system of the National Board, which applied to the schools of the poorer classes, than of the present scheme, which had reference to the higher. Moreover, he thought the Government had wisely taken warning from their experience of their great practical difficulty, in the instance of the National Board in Ireland; and he (Mr. Shaw) could not fairly make that a ground for opposing the present measure. His noble Friends who had proposed and seconded the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, and who had voted for the Maynooth Endowment Bill, might consistently recommend the Government to endow an exclusively Roman Catholic College; but he (Mr. Shaw) could not take that course, and must have opposed any such proposition. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) opposed the present measure; but while he (Sir R. Inglis) admitted the necessity for further means of instruction for the middle classes in Ireland, he (Sir R. Inglis) did not offer any substitute for the plan submitted to the House by Her Majesty's Government. Under all those circumstances, while he (Mr. Shaw) felt relieved from any personal responsibility in regard to the present measure, which he could not altogether approve—still, when he had heard nothing better proposed, and had nothing better to propose himself, he would not feel justified in withholding from the Government his vote for the second reading of the Bill they had submitted. He could wish to have made some answer to the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Osborne), and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), with reference to the University of Dublin; but at that late hour, and in the then excited state of the House, he would merely observe, that the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) admitted the fact, that education was as free there to Roman Catholics as to Protestants; and the spirit in which that speech was made, illustrated that such mixed education was, at all events, not without some advantages.

Sir Valentine Blake

would vote for the second reading. He was not satisfied with the Bill; he hoped considerable alteration would be made, and that the Government would not hurry it through Parliament.

The House divided on the Question, that the word "now" stand part of the Question:—Ayes 311; Noes 46: Majority 265.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Cavendish, hon. C. C.
A'Court, Capt Cavendish, hn. G. H.
Aglionby, H. A. Chapman, A.
Aldam, W. Chapman, B.
Alford, Visct. Christie, W. D.
Anson, hon. Col. Chute, W. L. W.
Antrobus, E. Clay, Sir W.
Archbold, R. Clayton, R. R.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Clements, Visct.
Clerk, rt. hn. Sir G.
Astell, W. Clifton, J. T.
Bailey, J. jun. Cobden, R.
Baillie, Col. Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.
Baillie, H. J. Colborne, hn. W. N. R.
Baine, W. Collett, W. R.
Baird, W. Collett, J.
Barkly, H. Collins, W.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Coote, Sir C. H.
Baring, T. Copeland, Ald.
Barneby, J. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Barrington, Visct. Courtenay, Lord
Barron, Sir H. W. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Craig, W. G.
Bell, M. Crawford, W. S.
Bellew, R. M. Cripps, W.
Benbow, J. Curteis, H. B.
Bentinck, Lord G. Dalrymple, Capt.
Blackburne, J. I. Damer, hon. Col.
Blake, M. J. Davies, D. A. S.
Blake, Sir V. Dawnay, hon. W. H.
Blakemore, R. Dawson, hon. T. V.
Bodkin, W. H. Denison, W. J.
Boldero, H. G. Dennistoun, J.
Borthwick, P. D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.
Botfield, B. Divett, E.
Bowes, J. Dodd, G.
Bowles, Adm. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Bowring, Dr. Douglas, J. D. S.
Boyd, J. Drummond, H. H.
Brisco, M. Dugdale, W. S.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Duncan, Visct.
Brotherton, J. Duncombe, T.
Brownrigg, J. S. East, J. B.
Bruce, C. L. C. Eastnor, Visct.
Bruges, W. H. L. Egerton, Lord F.
Buller, C. Ellice, rt. hn. E.
Campbell, J. H. Emlyn, Visct.
Cardwell, E. Entwisle, W.
Castlereagh, Visct. Escott, B.
Evans, W. Johnstone, Sir J.
Feilden, W. Johnstone, H.
Fellowes, E. Jones, Capt.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Kirk, P.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Lambton, H.
Fitzwilliam, hon. H. G. Langston, J. H.
Flower, Sir J. Lascelles, hn. W. S.
Forman, T. S. Lawson, A.
Forster, M. Layard, Capt.
Fox, C. R. Legh, G. C.
Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T. Lemon, Sir C.
French, F. Lennox, Lord A.
Gardner, J. D. Leveson, Lord
Gaskell, J. Milnes Liddell, hon. H. T.
Gill, T. Lincoln, Earl of
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Listowel, Earl of
Godson, R. Lockhart, W.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Lowther, Sir J. H.
Gore, M. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Gore, hon. R. Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Mackenzie, W. F.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. McGeachy, F. A.
Granger, T. C. McNeill, D.
Greene, T. Mahon, Visct.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Mangles, R. D.
Grimston, Visct. Marshall, W.
Guest, Sir J. Martin, J.
Hale, R. B. Martin, C. W.
Hall, Sir B. Martin, T. B.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F. Masterman, J.
Hamilton, C. J. B. Matheson, J.
Hamilton, J. H. Meynell, Capt.
Hamilton, G. A. Milnes, R. M.
Hamilton, W. J. Mitcalfe, H.
Hamilton, Lord C. Mitchell, T. A.
Hanmer, Sir J. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Harcourt, G. G. Morgan, O.
Harris, hon. Capt. Morris, D.
Hatton, Capt. V. Morison, Gen.
Hawes, B. Mundy, E. M.
Hayes, Sir E. Napier, Sir C.
Heneage, G. H. W. Newport, Visct.
Heneage, E. Nicholl, rt. hn. J.
Henniker, Lord Norreys, Lord
Herbert, rt. hn. S. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Hervey, Lord A. Northland, Visct.
Hinde, J. H. O'Brien, J.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. O'Connell, M. J.
Hodgson, F. Osborne, R.
Hogg, J. W. Ossulston, Lord
Hollond, R. Oswald, J.
Holmes, hn. W. A'C. Packe, C. W.
Hope, hon. C. Paget, Col.
Hope, G. W. Pakington, J. S.
Howard, hon. J. K. Palmerston, Visct.
Howard, hn. E. G. G. Parker, J.
Howard, P. H. Patten, J. W.
Howard, Sir R. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Hughes, W. B. Peel, J.
Hume, J. Philips, G. R.
Humphery, Ald. Philips, M.
Hussey, T. Pigot, Sir R.
Hutt, W. Plumridge, Capt.
Ingestre, Visct. Polhill, F.
James, Sir W. C. Ponsonby, hn. C. F. A.
Jermyn, Earl Praed, W. T.
Jocelyn, Visct. Pringle, A.
Pulsford, R. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Rawdon, Col. Tancred, H. W.
Redington, T. N. Tennent, J. E.
Reid, Sir J. R. Thesiger, Sir F.
Repton, G. W. J. Thornhill, G.
Rice, E. R. Tower, C.
Rolleston, Col. Traill, G.
Ross, D. R. Trelawny, J. S.
Rous, hon. Capt. Trench, Sir F. W.
Russell, Lord J. Trollope, Sir J.
Russell, C. Trotter, J.
Russell, J. D. W. Tufnell, H.
Ryder, hon. G. D. Vane, Lord H.
Sanderson, R. Vernon, G. H.
Sandon, Visct. Villiers, Visct.
Scott, hon. F. Vivian, J. H.
Seymour, Lord Vivian, J. E.
Seymour, Sir H. B. Wall, C. B.
Shaw, rt. hon. F. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Shelburne, Earl of Warburton, H.
Sheridan, R. B. Ward, H. G.
Smith, A. Wawn, J. T.
Smith, B. Welby, G. E.
Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C. Wellesley, Lord C.
Smollett, A. Westenra, hon. J.
Somerset, Lord G. Whitmore, T. C.
Somerton, Visct. Williams, W.
Somerville, Sir W. M. Wilshere, W.
Somes, J. Wodehouse, E.
Standish, C. Wood, Col.
Stanley, E. Wood, Col. T.
Stansfield, W. R. C. Worsley, Lord
Stanton, W. H. Wortley, hn. J. S.
Staunton, Sir G. T. Wrightson, W. B.
Stewart, J. Wyse, T.
Stuart, Lord J. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Stuart, W. V. Yorke, H. R.
Stuart, H.
Stock, Mr. Serj. TELLERS.
Strickland, Sir G. Young, J.
Strutt, E. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D. Lowther, hon. Col.
Austen, Col. Maher, N.
Blackstone, W. S. Mainwaring, T.
Bradshaw, J. March, Earl of
Bramston, T. W. Miles, P. W. S.
Broadley, H. Miles, W.
Chetwode, Sir J. Newdegate, C. N.
Clive, Visct. O'Brien, A. S.
Colvile, C. R. Plumptre, J. P.
Corbally, M. E. Rashleigh, W.
Dickinson, F. H. Richards, R.
Duncombe, hon. O. Roche, E. B.
Du Pre, C. G. Rushbrooke, Col.
Eaton, R. J. Sibthorp, Col.
Farnham, E. B. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Filmer, Sir E. Spooner, R.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Taylor, J. A.
Granby, Marquess of Thompson, Ald.
Greenall, P. Tollemache, J.
Henley, J. W. Turnor, C.
Hope, A. Waddington, H. S.
Hussey, A.
Inglis, Sir R. H. TELLERS.
Knight, F. W. Manners, Lord J.
Law, hon. C. E. Adare, Visct.

Bill read a second time.

House adjourned at half past one o'clock.