§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the present position of the Queen's University in Ireland. He desired to give no occasion for the revival of the somewhat warm discussions which took place on this subject last year. He should have occasion to say something as to the grounds on which the late Government proposed those changes in the Queen's University, of which the Charter of last year was a very imperfect portion. Beyond that he should confine himself to a narrative of what had since occurred with the view of eliciting from the present Government an explanation of their intentions as to the Queen's University, and as to the probable course of legislation, to be adopted. It was now almost three 1432 years since the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) moved an Address to Her Majesty representing the conscientious objections which prevented a large number of the people of Ireland from enjoying the advantages of University education, and praying that steps might be taken to remove the evil. That Motion was met by an admission of the grievance from the right hon. Member for Morpeth (then Home Secretary, Sir George Grey). The right hon. Gentleman added that he did not believe that Parliament would be prepared to multiply the number of Universities in Ireland. He stated that, in the opinion of the Government, the best course would be to alter the Charter of the Queen's University, to enlarge its powers, and remove the restrictions which prevented that University from granting degrees except to students proceeding from the three colleges attached to it. Upon that statement being made the hon. Member for Tralee withdrew his Motion, thereby laying the Government, and, to a very considerable extent, the House of Commons also under the obligation that that pledge should be carried into effect. Nevertheless, partly from unavoidable, and partly from avoidable causes, the pledge had not yet been fulfilled. It was true that a supplemental Charter was issued last year, enlarging the powers of the Queen's University. But legal proceedings had since been instituted which rendered that supplemental Charter of no effect for the present. Even if such proceedings had not been commenced, that Charter was avowedly and notoriously incomplete, it never having been intended that it should stand without the accompaniment of an Act of Parliament. Unless it should be completed by an Act of Parliament, it never would in any true sense carry out the intentions of the late Government. He would now say a few words as to the nature and the grounds of the changes which the late Government proposed to make in the system of University education in Ireland. The Governments of Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell were in succession convinced that though the Queen's Colleges were in their sphere excellent institutions and had obtained considerable success, they had yet failed to meet the educational requirements of the Irish people. This arose partly from their local character, which prevented them from extending their benefits far from their immediate neighbourhoods, 1433 Partly, and still more, because a large portion of the Roman Catholics in Ireland desired to send their sons for education to institutions such as the people of this country were familiar with — institutions where the teachers were of the same religious denomination as the students, and directly connected with some religious body. Attempts had been made to show by statistics that this assertion was without foundation, that all Roman Catholics in Ireland who desired to obtain University education already obtained it through the Queen's Colleges. Such a statement could not be sustained. Taking the College season of 1864–5, which was a period previous to any disturbing causes arising out of the discussions on the proposed changes, the whole number of students in attendance at lectures in the Queen's Colleges was 837. Out of these only 229 were Roman Catholics. In that season, 288 new students entered the three Queen's Colleges. Of that number seventy-three only were Roman Catholics. When the proportion which the Roman Catholics bore to the population of Ireland was considered, when it was recollected that the Queen's Colleges were in the main designed for the special benefit and relief of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland who had been excluded from the educational endowments, which in a natural and normal state of things would fall to the share of the great majority of the nation; and when it was borne in mind that, although the authors of the Queen's Colleges—the late Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham—fully expected that at least the Colleges of Cork and Galway would be substantially Roman Catholic Colleges, yet the Roman Catholic students were in a decided minority in those Colleges, while they were almost invisible in the College of Belfast, the House could not fail to come to the conclusion that the utterly subordinate position of the Roman Catholic students in the Colleges was not commensurate with the expectations of the founders, and not satisfactory to Parliament, which voted money for the colleges in the hope that they would be beneficial to the Irish people. Independently of statistics, it was impossible for the House to shut its eyes to the assurances received from every organ of Roman Catholic opinion, to the effect that while a certain number of Roman Catholics availed themselves of the benefit of the colleges, those colleges were far from meeting the requirements 1434 of the Roman Catholic population. A large portion of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland were not conscientiously able to avail themselves of the education afforded by the colleges. They were institutions not for mere boys, but for growing-up and grown-up young men. When there existed in this country a strong feeling in favour of education being given in institutions connected with the religious faith of the parents of the students, was it to be wondered at that in Ireland such a feeling should be far stronger? It had been said that there was a University in this country which would satisfy all the requirements of the case — namely, the London University. It was supposed by some that the facilities which were afforded by the London University to Irish students were very considerable. But that admirable institution could never take root to any great extent in the sister country. The Irish people were not acquainted with its governing body, and were not represented there. There was besides a kind of national feeling which operated in those matters, which to venture to ignore would be to fight against nature. Since the foundation of the London University in 1840 the number of degrees which it had conferred on candidates proceeding from Ireland did not amount to twenty. Of those by far the greater proportion had been conferred on students of Carlow College, which he had reason to believe would prefer being connected with an Irish University established in Dublin. Under those circumstances, the late Government had decided upon a plan which it seemed to them would meet the state of things he had just mentioned. They proposed to enlarge the powers of the Queen's University by throwing its degrees open, not only to colleges of a denominational character other than the Queen's Colleges, but—subject to such rules as the Senate might lay down—to all candidates who might comply with its requirements. They did not propose to interfere with the Queen's Colleges beyond putting an end to the monopoly of Queen's University degrees which they had hitherto enjoyed, and exposing them to the open air of competition. They further intended to ask the House to vote a sum for the establishment of University scholarships, in connection with the central University in Dublin, which should be open to all comers. It was their intention also to give increased dignity to the Queen's University by enabling it to return a Member to Par- 1435 liament—a proposal which he had last year the honour to make. The late Government had in addition placed a Vote upon the Estimates, which he was glad to see in the Estimates for the current year, for the purpose of securing to that University a proper local habitation in Dublin. They desired, too, to increase the number of the Senate, and to provide, as far as possible, that it should be so composed as to secure the confidence of the whole Irish people, and of the Roman Catholic portion of the population in particular. The plan which he had thus briefly sketched had been carried out but imperfectly by the steps which the late Government had been enabled to take last year. A supplementary Charter had been granted giving all that they were informed by their Law Advisers they could give. The powers of the Senate were thereby enlarged, but what had been done fell very far short of that which the Government had it in their mind to accomplish. The Charter did not profess to make any alteration in the body corporate. Under it the new candidates were not put upon an equal footing with the students of the Queen's Colleges. It was the intention of the late Government that the Charter should be accompanied by a Bill. That Bill was ready, and would have been introduced had not the existence of the Government suddenly terminated—in fact, the separation of the Charter from the Bill had been only caused by the accidents of Parliamentary warfare. The number of the Senate was not increased, but the vacancies then existing were filled up by the appointment of four eminent Roman Catholics and of two Protestant noblemen. It was the original intention of the Government which founded the Queen's College that there should be, as stated by Sir James Graham, a fair proportion of Roman Catholic professors among the professorial body. It was true that difficulties were said to have arisen in finding competent Roman Catholic gentlemen to fill those posts. Knowing the great educational difficulties under which members of that persuasion long laboured, he could well understand that such was the case. His conviction was, however, that those difficulties might be overcome, as they certainly must be if the Queen's Colleges were to maintain their usefulness. If an united system of education were to be established in Ireland, it must be taken with its necessary conditions and limitations. The system of union and participation 1436 must exist in the teaching body as well as among the students, not only for the sake of giving their due professional prizes to Roman Catholic gentlemen of learning, but of creating that confidence and proper self-respect which ought not to be denied to the Roman Catholic students of those Colleges. From an accurate pamphlet which had been written by a member of the Queen's University (Sir Dominic Corrigan), he found that last year or the year before there were some sixty professors in the Queen's Colleges. Out of those there were only seven Roman Catholics—a proportion which could be hardly just to the Roman Catholic body. The College of Belfast, which was a very eminent and, in its way, a successful institution, could scarcely, with justice, be called non-sectarian. Last year, out of 405 students in attendance at that College, there were only twenty-two Roman Catholics. Out of 135 new entrances of students the proportion of Roman Catholics was but six. In the whole teaching and governing staff there was not a member of that persuasion. With respect to the composition of the teaching body and the body of students, there was no doubt that the institution was as much a Denominational body as the Colleges of Oxford or Cambridge. That might explain to the House why the College of Belfast was so excessively popular with the Protestants of Ulster, and why it was so unpopular, judging from their attendance, with the Roman Catholics. He would turn to the history of the Queen's University since the late Government left office. On the 6th of last October the Senate of the Queen's University met, and by a majority of 11 to 9 accepted the supplemental Charter. Soon after that a remarkable event occurred. The Convocation of the Queen's University was for the first time assembled under the special mandate of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant, if he remembered rightly, expressed a hope that the Government would be enlightened by the discussions of that body. He knew not whether that expectation had been fully realized. At all events, the Convocation met. It was a somewhat noisy and tumultuous assemblage of high-spirited young men, most of them young Bachelors of Arts, who gave a rather rough reception to their respected Vice Chancellor. They, no doubt, by an overwhelming majority passed a resolution to the effect that the acceptance of the supplemental Charter was impolitic, al- 1437 though a protest was sent in to the Government against the conduct of the majority. He need hardly say that in his opinion that was not a question to be decided by a body of young men one way or the other. The institution with which they were dealing was the creature of Parliament. It was maintained solely and absolutely by Parliament. It was for the Government and Parliament to decide how far the claims of a great portion of the Irish people were to be considered, and in what way the funds voted by Parliament could be best applied to the purpose for which they were intended. There was one circumstance at the meeting of the Convocation which he wished to mention. Sir Robert Kane, the President of the Queen's College at Cork, an eminent and respected Roman Catholic gentleman, was put forward to move the Resolution already referred to, condemning the supplemental Charter. But he declared his desire to see the Catholic University admitted to the Queen's University as a College upon entirely an equal footing with the Queen's Colleges. He opposed the supplemental Charter on this ground, among others, that it would introduce into the Queen's University the system of the University of London, which admitted a non-collegiate education, and gave the full benefit of University degrees to students not proceeding to a College. This he thought an injurious system. Since then Sir Robert had been fully answered by Dr. Carpenter, the Registrar of the University of London, and lately also by Lord Granville, its Chancellor. He would leave him to their tender mercies. He would only say that if the system which gave University degrees to students coming from all quarters was necessary in England, it was still more so in Ireland, where there were many families who could not afford the expense of sending their sons to reside at a distance or in college towns. After that meeting, the Senate proceeded diligently and cautiously to give effect to the supplemental Charter. They appointed a Committee, who considered and adopted the new rules that were requisite for carrying out their enlarged powers—rules that met with very general approval in Ireland. In pursuance of them they gave notice that the first examination for candidates under the now Charter would take place in January last. The opponents of the supplemental Charter made an application to the Master of the Rolls in the course of 1438 the autumn for an injunction to restrain the Senate in its proceedings. A provisional or ad interim injunction was, with great hesitation, granted by the Master of the Rolls. Of course, it stopped all the Senate's proceedings for the time. The case was argued, on the part of the Senate, just before the meeting of Parliament. The Master of the Rolls, changing the opinion he had first formed when he granted the ad interim injunction, gave judgment on the 16th of April in favour of the Senate, dismissing the petition of the graduates with costs, on the ground that they had no locus standi, and that their interests were not injured by anything that had been done. The Master of the Rolls, however, gave expression, though with the greatest hesitation and doubt, to the extra-judicial opinion that the Senate of the Queen's University was not legally entitled to accept the supplemental Charter. Acting, he presumed, on that weighty though extra-judicial opinion, other parties had since then instituted fresh proceedings upon an information grounded on the fiat of the Attorney General. He asked the Government what they intended to do under the circumstances he had sketched. Did they intend that the Queen's University in Ireland should remain indefinitely in its present position? There were many persons who had been waiting a long time in the hope of obtaining degrees, who were grieved and disappointed at the delay to which they were subjected. Were the Senate to go on indefinitely defending suits at their own private risk, or were the expenses to be provided by Parliament? It was the duty of the Government to interpose and to anticipate the possible results of litigation, either by sanctioning and completing by further legislation the plans of the late Government, or by providing something wiser and better. He could imagine a plan more acceptable to the country. He could imagine the throwing open of the University of Dublin to the people of Ireland. He spoke of the University of Dublin as distinct from Trinity College. That would be better than the plan of the late Government. Such a scheme had been hinted at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The principle was gaining ground that a University should be a national institution; that, as it derived its powers of granting degrees from the State, it should be required to confer them freely and equally. In this country we had seen Universities limited 1439 and warped by denominationalism and religions tests. In Ireland, on the contrary, this Queen's University had been warped and limited by the necessity of refusing its degrees to any denominational college, and of confining them to the three colleges founded on the non-sectarian system. One system appeared to him as partial as the other. However acceptable the system of united education might be to many in this country, and even to a considerable number in Ireland, was it wise to attempt to force it on the Irish people by the refusal to any other system of the benefit of University degrees, which the State alone could sanction and confer? Was there common sense in refusing the services and support of eminent Roman Catholics in Ireland, who were willing to take part in a united university because they were not willing to connect themselves with united colleges? Was there any legal or academical obstacle at Oxford to the foundation of Nonconformist or Roman Catholic Colleges? It was the aim of University reformers here to give liberty in these matters, and not to impose either a denominational or an undenominational system. This was what they wished to see in Ireland. They wished that students from any college, Roman Catholic and Presbyterian included, might obtain degrees at the Queen's University. He did not mean to say that he believed the scheme of the late Government could be a final settlement of the matter; that there could not be without a fresh allocation of ecclesiastical endowments, and a general settlement of the ecclesiastical question. But it was right as far as it went. The present Government were not responsible for it. They found it launched, but incomplete, and absolutely requiring interference and legislation. He appealed to the Government not to treat this as a party question. He called upon them to state what their intentions were. They would be justly blameable if they any longer disappointed the expectations of great numbers of persons in Ireland by allowing the University to remain subject to all the delays and hazards of litigation.
LORD NAASsaid, he had listened with great interest to the speech of his light hon. Friend, but found it difficult to discover what were his precise opinions upon University education in Ireland. He slid that the Queen's Colleges were to a certain extent a failure, as they had not succeeded in gathering to themselves the 1440 sympathy and support of a great portion of the Irish people. No doubt this was so. It was to be regretted that institutions maintained at such expense, and in the success of which such interest was felt in this country, had not succeeded. But it was extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman and others who were always attempting to establish a system of University education in England as nearly analogous to that of the Queen's Colleges as possible should turn round and say that a system which they thought a right one for England was wholly unsuited to Ireland. As University reformers the right hon. Gentleman and those who agreed with him tried to throw open the governing bodies of all educational institutions in this country to persons of all denominations. This principle, carried to its legitimate conclusion, would result in the establishment here of precisely the same system as existed in the Queen's University and Queen's Colleges in Ireland. Denominational education was altogether excluded there. The professors and students were entitled to the benefits which education and a degree gave, independently of religious belief. In practice there might be some difference, in principle there was none, between this system and that so often advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not express any opinion whether the system was right or wrong. The mixed system was found in full operation in the Queen's Colleges. If any alteration were made in it they would revert to the modified denomination that exists in Trinity College, at Oxford, and Cambridge. When, therefore, hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to change the system of the Queen's University, they assumed a most inconsistent and illogical position. Whether it eventually succeeded or not, he believed that a purely secular University education did not at present recommend itself to the feelings of any great class in either country. The feeling was strong that parents would rather send their sons to a college conducted by professors of their own faith than to one where the greater part of the education might be conducted by members of a different creed. This feeling was at the root of the difficulties experienced by the Queen's Colleges. He would now call attention to what had taken place respecting the Queen's University. The Charter of 1850 limited the governing body to the Senate. In 1864 that Charter 1441 was considerably enlarged, and a draft was remitted to the Senate, which discussed and altered it. Under that Charter for the first time a mode was granted for the constitution of Convocation. Two powers were conferred upon that body. The power of electing members to the Senate, and the power of meeting in order to discuss all matters affecting the interest of the University. The power of discussion was postponed until the Queen's Letter should issue directly authorizing it. When the Charter passed the University was, to a certain extent, in an infant state. Meetings for discussion were then unnecessary. The first occasion for the exercise by Convocation of the power of election of a member of the Senate arose on Lord Monteagle's death, in 1866. The graduates then signified their wish to elect a member to the governing body. At the same time, there were rumours that considerable alterations were intended by Government in the constitution of the University. Early in 1866 the graduates expressed a desire to discuss those proposed changes. In February, 1866, a certain number of them petitioned the Senate to summon Convocation for the purpose of electing a member to fill the vacancy. No answer was returned. A similar application was made in April, but no meeting of the Senate was convened. In the meantime the attention of Parliament had been directed to this question. Without going into the details of what took place here, the impression was certainly left upon the minds of many hon. Members that no fundamental change would be proposed in the constitution of the Queen's University until Parliament had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject. [Mr. LOWE: No change at all.] It was gathered from the remarks made on the part of the Government that whether these changes were to be effected by a Bill, by supplemental Charter, or by an Estimate, Government was not to act until the opinion of Parliament had been taken. What happened? A division which led to the resignation of the Government took place on the 18th of June. Their resignation was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 26th of June. On the 25th the supplemental Charter passed the Great Seal. On the 27th of June, the day after the resignation of the Ministry was announced to this House, a Royal Warrant was issued appointing six new members to the Senate. 1442 He had not a single word to say against the character or fitness of the gentlemen so appointed. But he must point out that they all belonged to the one political party, and though a large majority of the educated classes in Ireland belong to the party opposed to the late Government, not a single Conservative was nominated. The Senate immediately assumed a partisan complexion which he thought it unfortunate that any such body should assume. The Vice Chancellor summoned the Senate for the 6th of July, and a meeting was held. But the discussion of the supplementary Charter was postponed until later in the year. That meeting was attended by his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel); by his advice the discussion on that question was postponed. Either in the August or September following the present Government received an application from Members of Convocation asking them to grant a Queen's Letter, according to the terms of the Charter of 1864, in order to enable them to discuss the supplementary Charter. A warrant to that effect was signed by the Government on the 25th of September, without the slightest hesitation. The demand was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the Charter, nor did he believe that any Government could refuse to give the power asked for. Convocation was to meet on the 12th of October. It was a remarkable fact that on the 6th of the same month a meeting of the Senate was called to discuss and decide upon the acceptance of the supplementary Charter. The circumstance was remarkable, because it was well known that Convocation was to meet on the 12th for the purpose of discussing and expressing an opinion upon that very subject. The Senate met on the 6th, and after a private debate, of which the public knew nothing, decided by a majority of 2 in favour of the acceptance of the new Charter, the numbers being 11 to 9. It was remarkable that every one of the new members of the Senate did what was expected of them and voted for the acceptance of the Charter. At that meeting two Amendments were moved. They appeared so reasonable and fair that he could not understand the grounds on which they were rejected, and he thought a great deal of the difficulty and ill-feeling which had since arisen would have been avoided had the Senate adopted either of those Resolutions. The first Amendment was as follows:—
That as serious doubts exist as to the competence of the Senate to accept the Charter of 1443 the 25th of June last, and as many Members of the Senate are of opinion that its provisions are inexpedient, the Senate declines to entertain the question of its acceptance until and unless Parliament shall have legislated on this subject.That was the Resolution designed to give effect to what the House of Commons expected and intended—namely, that no steps should be taken in the matter until Parliament had had an opportunity of coming to a decision upon it. That Amendment was rejected. The second Amendment was as follows:—That the discussion be postponed till Convocation shall have had an opportunity of electing a representative in the Senate and of declaring its opinion on the Charter.Though Convocation was to meet in the following week, that Amendment was rejected. On the 12th of October the meeting took place in St. Patrick's Hall. Large numbers of graduates were present. He was somewhat surprised to hear the disparaging way in which so distinguished a Member of the Liberal party as his right hon. Friend spoke of the public discussion which then took place. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE made a remark which did not reach the gallery.] He had no doubt that the meeting was noisy, but ninny public meetings were noisy. However that might be, able speeches were made on one side and the other. His right hon. Friend seemed to dread public debate on the question, and insinuated that such discussions were not for the benefit of the University, and that they were much better suited for the Senate. In his opinion public discussion on such questions was most useful and tended to elicit truth. After a long debate Convocation came to this Resolution—That in the opinion of Convocation the acceptance of the supplementary Charter is inexpedient.That Resolution had no effect on the Senate—it was treated with superb contempt. Regulations which were calculated to carry into effect the objects of the supplementary Charter were drawn up and published in the month of November. The object of the regulations was to provide for the examination of students under the new rules in the following January. On the 3rd of December those proceedings were put a stop to by an injunction of the Muster of the Rolls. The two points involved in the case submitted to the Master of the Rolls were, first, as to the power of the Crown to grant a supplementary Charter, and secondly, whether that Supplementary 1444 Charter was valid without the sanction of Parliament. After long and able arguments adduced on both sides, on the 16th of April the Master of the Rolls pronounced his decision, dismissing the case, on the grounds that the promoters had no locus standi, and that the suit had not been instituted in the names of the proper parties. The Master of the Rolls, however, delivered a remarkable opinion, which, though it was extra-judicial, perfectly justified those interested in the case in carrying it further. The Master of the Rolls said—As I have come to the conclusion that the petitioners cannot sustain the present petition, it becomes unnecessary to decide the question whether the power of accepting or rejecting the Charter is vested in the Senate or in the corporation at large of the University; but, after the very elaborate discussion which this question has undergone, I cannot say that I have not formed an opinion upon it. It is certainly not free from difficulty, but my present impression is in favour of the view pressed by the petitioners, that the Charter of 1864 does not vest the power of accepting or rejecting the new Charter in the Senate exclusively.He had now brought the course of the proceedings down almost to the present day. There was every reason to hope that at no distant period this question would be submitted in proper form to a Court of Law, and he trusted a decision might be pronounced upon it with all convenient speed. The Government had from the beginning taken no part in the question beyond that purely Ministerial duty which their office imposed upon them. The Attorney General had given his consent to the suit, and he was informed on the highest legal authority that in doing so he was only discharging a duty which it was absolutely necessary for him to perform. The Government could not have refused to sanction the meeting of Convocation without a great dereliction of duty. Their sole object had been to allow this important question, to be decided in the only satisfactory way—namely, by a Court of Law. They would feel it their duty not to take any action until the decision of a legal tribunal had been finally pronounced. The course taken by the former Government was attended with unfortunate results. The present Government believed they would have acted contrary to their duty had they taken any step without having submitted the subject to the consideration of Parliament. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Hear, hear!] Did the right hon. Gentleman think the Government ought to have introduced a measure for confirming the sup- 1445 plemental Charter? If not, what could have been the object of a Bill? [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: The whole policy of University education.] The whole policy of University education. Had they proposed an entire scheme, it might or might not have been in opposition to the supplemental Charter and the system proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Action was impossible while the case was sub judice. Suppose the Courts of Law should decide in favour of the validity of the Charter, it would place any new scheme which might be in opposition to it in an awkward position. He did not believe any Government ought to have incurred such a responsibility. In waiting till the question had been decided by the proper tribunal they had studied the best interests of University education in Ireland, and had acted in accordance with the expressed wishes of the majority of this House, Whenever the time came they would not shrink from expressing frankly upon the subject the views which they entertained, for it was one which could not be allowed to rest. It would be the duty of the Government and of the House to endeavour to make University education in Ireland more acceptable to the great mass of the Irish people. He did not think he was bound to go further upon the present occasion, and he would rejoice if that object could be effected without weakening the system pursued in the Queen's Colleges, which had so often received the support of the House, and, particularly in the North, conferred great benefits on Ireland. However it could be done, we must recollect that Universities, colleges, and schools were only means to attain a great end — namely, that of imparting education to the people, and he did not think that any strict adherence to previous measures ought to deter Government and Parliament from endeavouring to adopt that system of education which would most largely promote the diffusion of knowledge among the people of Ireland.
§ MR. O'REILLYsaid, however eloquently the undenominational system of education might be advocated in or out of that House, it was quite clear that the great mass of the Roman Catholics in Ireland would not adopt it. They had been waiting patiently for a measure of justice from the Government, both in respect to primary and University education, and they wished to know the intentions of the Government upon those points. He had listened attentively 1446 to the speech of the noble Lord, and he felt utterly disappointed in not being able to ascertain the precise opinion of the Government. He was ready to receive a measure of justice from whatever side of the House it might come. He had entertained hopes of a measure of justice from those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who now sit on his side of the House. But he was doomed to disappointment. With regard to primary education, no doubt certain concessions of considerable value had been inaugurated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) had promised a measure to enable Roman Catholics to obtain degrees in the Dublin University. But the plan developed by the late Government they were unable to carry out. With respect to University education, he found that owing to a technical legal difficulty, to which the Roman Catholics had nothing to say, they were practically debarred from all degrees conferred by the University of Ireland, unless they chose to be educated in the Queen's Colleges. To his knowledge there were fifty young men prepared to stand the examination in order to get a degree last January. They were now put off. He remembered when the noble Lord (Lord Naas) was in Opposition, he was arraigning the then Government for their faults. When the right hon. Gentleman who then held the office of Home Secretary declared that the system of education in the Queen's Colleges was to be altered, the noble Lord said that any such proposal would have his opposition. It was with grave regret he had come to the conclusion which most unwillingly a large body of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen would come to, that Her Majesty's Government did not mean to meet their just claims on the subject of education in Ireland. He had hoped to have received justice from hon. Gentlemen opposite; but having waited for a long time for some declaration that it was intended to make education in Ireland more acceptable to the people, he had been greatly disappointed, and so would the great mass of his fellow-countrymen. When they asked for redress they were told that they must wait the result of the Chancery suit. He asked the Government whether they intended to re-model the Queen's Colleges, or the system of education in the Dublin University so as to extend its advantages to the whole country. It seemed likely that the Government 1447 would force the Irish people to retrograde from the position they had already won.
THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that having called attention to the state of University education in Ireland in 1865, he wished to offer a few observations on the present occasion. Upon many points he agreed with the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. There was much uncertainty as to what would be the ultimate fate of the supplemental Charter of last year, and there was some ground for dispute as to what was the precise cause which brought it into operation. Upon two subjects they were all agreed—first, that the supplementary Charter was intended to settle the question of University education in Ireland; next, that it had failed to do so. It was undoubtedly well meant, and was brought forward in a spirit of great liberality, but it had satisfied few persons. The Presbyterians of Ireland had rejected it; the Established Church were inclined to take the same view. The Roman Catholics, but for whom it would not have had any existence, only availed themselves of its provisions as a temporary arrangement. It failed to confer on them those lights to which they were entitled, and which they hoped to acquire. The aim of English modern education had been directed to the object of enabling the members of different religious denominations to meet and derive secular instruction from the same common source. This might do very well for those who liked it; but it did not follow that everybody did like it, and it was not consistent with a true spirit of liberality to enforce its acceptance on those who did not approve of it. To ensure its successful working, there should be complete harmony between the members of different religious denominations with respect to all matters connected with its administration. Where secular sectarian animosities prevailed, such a system could not prosper, and it only intensified and perpetuated the evils it was designed to cure. The Protestants had in many places withdrawn from the National schools. The Roman Catholics of Ulster objected to these schools because they said the rule of separate instruction was violated. The Queen's Colleges had been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church for reasons which he, as a Roman Catholic, fully recognised. The wrangling about education in Ireland, during the last few years, and the bitterness it had engendered, ought to have satisfied Parliament that the mixed system 1448 was not suited to Ireland. The denominational system ought to have a fair trial. So far as primary education was concerned, the Roman Catholics had suited themselves in three out of four of the provinces. Public opinion in Ireland was against the mixed system. Every Roman Catholic gentleman sent his sons to a Roman Catholic school, and every Protestant did the same. The number of Roman Catholic youths, however, who had received a University education was very limited, owing to the fact that there was no University corresponding in its religious character to the intermediate schools. The youth who ran up to London from Durham or Somersetshire and took his degree at the London University could not be said to have received a University education in the ordinary sense. If the supplemental Charter became law an Irish lad might cram in the provinces and run up to Dublin and snatch a degree from the Queen's University, but no one would regard him as having received a University education. In 1865 he asked the Government to confer a Charter and a legal existence upon a Roman Catholic University. This he recommended, believing it would be doing justice in the case. It was the only way to secure a thorough settlement of the question, approved by an overwhelming majority of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. In election addresses he had noticed that promises to work for a Charter for a Roman Catholic University were very prominent. He had seen such promises in the addresses of hon. Members for the counties of Cork, Tipperary, and Kilkenny. He had never asked any Government to endow a Roman Catholic University as well as give it a Charter, because he believed that, as in former times, Oxford and Cambridge had been endowed, so would any Roman Catholic University in Ireland be endowed if the Government would but bestow upon it the dignity and position which a Charter would confer. The number of Roman Catholics who received University education, as compared with the number of Protestants, was small—conscience barred the way. Trinity College was exclusively Protestant; ascendancy in Church and State was its motto; it sent representative after representative to the House of Commons, pledged to be the spokesman of ascendancy so long as a shred of that wretched flag held together. He believed it would continue to do so. Colleges in which all sects met would be the scene of 1449 continual and violent strife, sustained by rival sympathies from without, until one of the contending parties would be obliged to give up the contention in despair. On what grounds, but because the applicants were Roman Catholics, could a Charter for a University be refused them? Without a Charter they could never hope for equality in education; equality was denied them in Trinity and the Queen's Colleges, and it was equality only that they asked for. He did not desire anything exclusively for Roman Catholics; they wished only to share the benefit which their fellow-countrymen of another sect enjoyed. It was intolerable that Government should refuse a Charter to a University to which Catholic parents could freely send their sons. He was still not without hope that Her Majesty's Government might settle this question to the satisfaction of the majority of the people of Ireland. In 1865 the question received considerable support from the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). The question waited for a settlement satisfactory to the great majority of the people of Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed to him, as a member of a deputation, sentiments not unfavourable to the object advocated. He trusted that before the debate closed he should hear from the right hon. Gentleman an expression that the Government would speedily do something in the important matter of Irish education.
§ MR. ACLANDsaid, that he had some years since stated that no plan of University education for Ireland would succeed which had not the support of the Roman Catholic Bishops. Everything that had occurred since had confirmed him in that opinion. The question was most important, as involving the whole relations between art education, instruction in science, and professional training. In medical education the English schools were in a state of chaos, which the heads were endeavouring to remedy with the aid of gentlemen from Ireland. Irishmen were much in advance of them in that respect. Hon. Members opposite ought to be told that this was a question which ought not to be left in abeyance, and that no Ministerial difficulties or legal obstacles ought to stand in the way of this question. It was for the interest of the Empire that Irishmen should have access without religious distinction to academical degrees. If the Government had nothing to offer but legal obstacles and could only tell them to go to the Loudon University, that was no 1450 answer to the claim. He did not know why they should be told to go there. They would have to pay far higher fees than they did at the Queen's University in Ireland, and were debarred from its honours. Nor was it any satisfaction to them to be told that there might possibly some day be Roman Catholic Universities in Ireland. That would be a great evil. The results had been very unsatisfactory in other parts of the United Kingdom by leading to a sort of underbidding for academical education, which would be injurious. What Roman Catholics required was access to academical degrees without religious distinction, not through colleges which gave them what they deemed a "godless education." When Sir Robert Peel introduced his scheme to the House they were in a different position to what they were at present. The year before Sir Robert Peel established the Queen's University, Sir James Graham had made a remarkable attempt to establish a system of factory education in this country upon Church of England principles. The whole body of Dissenters rose at once and said they would have none of it. Sir Robert Peel was therefore not prepared to establish Roman Catholic education in Ireland. Assisted by the great bulk of those who sat behind him, he founded the Queen's Colleges, but the state of things at present was entirely altered. They had now recognised in England, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Presbyterian, Episcopal Church of Scotland, and various other forms of education. They were no longer in a position to tell the Roman Catholics of Ireland that they should have either secular education or none at all. He understood more clearly than he ever did before the feelings of injustice his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) below him had so eloquently expressed, and the irritation with which fathers of families reflected upon the fact that their sons could not obtain a degree except under conditions repugnant to their consciences. The Government were bound to walk very warily in this matter. If they did not there would be such a claim for secular education in England that the Church of England would have great difficulty in holding her own. Irishmen were entitled to call upon the Government to grapple with this question. They wanted a National standard for professional attainments. They were able to meet Englishmen in the medical and legal professions, and were competent to rise to any 1451 standard which might be set up. They wanted a great University for Ireland upon National principles. As a Member of the Liberal party, he was aware that there were different opinions and schools of thought in that party. He wished to vindicate for English and Irish Liberals their rights; especially to guard against their being dragged into assenting to principles which some Liberals were apt to maintain, and which were both intolerant and tyrannical. They would not be forced to desert those who vindicated Church of England principles or the religious principles of any who entertained sincere convictions, or to assert the impossibility of holding those principles in thorough concurrence with Liberal feelings upon State matters. He thanked the House for the opportunity afforded to him of expressing his views upon this important subject.
§ MR. LOWEWhatever right, Sir, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down may have to speak for the Liberal party on other questions, I most emphatically deny his right to address the House as their representative on this subject. After the turn this debate has taken it is quite time that some one should vindicate what used to be the Liberal idea of comprehensive and tolerant education. I should not have said a word on the subject had anyone risen with that view. But I have heard this evening one Gentleman after another expressing what I can regard as nothing less than the principles of intolerance against those of toleration of re-action against progress. No Minister of the Crown ever undertook or executed a nobler work than Sir Robert Peel when he, in the last year of his Administration, founded the Queen's Colleges. Those Colleges were something more than mere educational establishments. They had a political significance. The great and wise man who founded them meant them to be schools in which the Irish should not only acquire secular learning, but where they should also learn—a lesson, I am grieved to say, in which they have made but small progress—that persons of different religious persuasions might be brought up to live together in unity and peace. No one leading the debates of that time can fail to perceive that that was as much in the mind of Sir Robert Peel as anything else. But what has been the treatment that these Colleges have received to-night? The noble Lord the present Secretary for Ireland says that they have failed, and that failure he attributes to the united and 1452 secular character of their education. That is the language which the Secretary for Ireland holds in this House to-night. And what is the evidence of their failure? When those Colleges first came into existence they were placed under the ban of the Roman Catholic Church. A synod of the clergy was held to put them down. In pursuance of that synod and a papal rescript a University was established, founded by Roman Catholics in this country under the auspices of the Pope. The two horses were started fairly to run against each other. What has been the result? I have made it my duty to inquire into the proceedings of the Roman Catholic University. They are very difficult to get at. It is not easy to find out what are the studies, who are the tutors, or who are the professors. I have, however, learnt quite enough to show me that it has been a conspicuous failure. Those who know most about it may deny it if they can. But what has been the fate of those Colleges? Denounced by the Roman Catholic Church with all its terrors and all its thunders, opposed in every manner possible, denounced, too, by many well-meaning persons in this country as godless Colleges, they have gradually and steadily increased, and before the mischievous interference of the late Government they were attended by 837 students. When you remember that they possess hardly any endowments, and that Oxford, with all its endowment?, has only about 1,200 students; when, too, you remember the obstacles they have had to encounter, I am perfectly warranted in saying that they have proved successful. It was a success—a success, at least, in comparison with what had been accomplished by that University—in which a foreign Power had assumed authority to confer degrees and honours, the right to give which rested alone with the Sovereign of these realms. That is how matters stood just before the election of 1865. I do not know what are the numbers now, but I am aware that they have diminished, and that through the mischievous interference of the late Government. The tale has been told by the late Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Chichester Fortescue), but it has been so disfigured and so treated that I am sure House would not recognise the real truth. Let me tell the tale in a few words. In June, 1865, just before the election, the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) asked the Government whether they would grant a Charter to the Roman Catholic 1453 University. The Government refused, but offered to give the Queen's University power to confer degrees upon persons who had not been educated in the Queen's College. When the House met after the election, many Members were anxious to be informed what was to be done in pursuance of that promise. They received the most satisfactory assurance that no measures would be adopted without the fullest information being communicated to the House. I will not go over the story again. Is it not written in the pages of Hansard? Were we not informed that we should have the fullest opportunity of discussing the question? After that assurance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (the then Secretary of State for the Home Deportment, Sir George Grey) wrote a letter to the Lord Lieutenant, in which he said the Government, after taking legal advice, found it necessary to introduce a Bill in order to do what they desired. The then Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Chichester Forteseue), who was not a Cabinet Minister, afterwards brought in a Reform Bill for Ireland. Upon its introduction some ambiguous observations were made. We have since been told that this was sufficient notice; that the assurance of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer had been completely complied with; that the policy announced in the letter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) had been revoked, and that we ought then or never to have taken our objections. No one, however, who takes any interest in the question so understood it. So things went on to the end of the Session. On the 13th of June, six days before the Government resigned office, they obtained the Sign Manual to a Charter. That Charter was not sealed until the 25th of June, or six days after they had tendered their resignations. The House never heard a word about it. On the 27th, while they were merely holding office until their successors were appointed, they issued a warrant, by means of which they packed the Senate that was to accept the Charter. They added six Members to that Senate, all of them their own supporters, and four of them Roman Catholics. They were advised that the Charter must be received by that body, and they knew, as turned out to be the case, that if it was not packed the Charter would be refused. After the Charter was accepted, a suit was instituted before the Master of the Rolls on what appears to a non-legal mind to be a 1454 most reasonable ground—namely, that a body appointed to carry on the ordinary purposes of a corporation could not annul the corporation by accepting a different Charter. The Master of the Rolls dismissed the suit on the technical ground that the Attorney General ought to have been made a party, but intimated that his opinion inclined in favour of the petitioners. That is the treatment which the great measure of Sir Robert Peel has received from hon. Gentlemen who sit below rue. From the opposite side of the House we ore told that it has been a failure. On this side every concealment—what shall I say?—every legal chicane has been employed to destroy it, and that because the late Ministers dared not bring the matter fairly before the House. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it should be brought before the House. The late Home Secretary wrote to the Lord Lieutenant that it must be brought before the House. It was not. Why was it not? Because the Government were initiating a policy with which they dared not face the House, and upon which they dared not stand a debate. It is all very well to say that this was done to please the Roman Catholic people of Ireland—the Roman Catholic laity; but we know very differently. We know that the Roman Catholic laity have never felt any objection to these institutions. They have been driven into antagonism by the coercion of spiritual terror. This is the state of things. The simple point taken now is that it is the height of bigotry and intolerance to offer to the Roman Catholic youth that they shall be educated upon precisely equal terms with the youth of any other denomination; that the Government are violating all liberal principles and all principles of fairness, because they say to the Roman Catholic youth of Ireland, "You shall receive the some secular education as the youth of all other denomination, and your religious principles shall be in no degree invaded or interfered with." This is called persecution and intolerance. I suppose it is not the height of intolerance for the Roman Catholic hierarchy to say that their religious opinions do not permit them to allow the children of Roman Catholic parents to be educated with those of persons of other denominations, or to receive secular instruction at their hands, because they differed from them in religion. The question now is, whether we are to give up, surrender, and abandon this noble idea of a united education for all classes in Ireland 1455 Are we to resign the best and perhaps the only hope we have left of welding into one harmonious whole opinion and feeling in that distracted country, of reconciling the difference among the people, and teaching Irishmen to regard each other with feelings of mutual charity, friendship, and regard? Are we deliberately to give up this noble conception. And for what? To expend the State funds in subsidizing denominational institutions, where each denomination should be put into the hands of its clergy, to be instructed in doctrines of bigotry, intolerance, and mutual animosity. That is the new creed of liberality. It may be said we ought to defer to Irish opinion, and that Irish opinion is Roman Catholic—that is the opinion of the hierarchy. But there is a limit to this spirit of concession. There is other liberality than giving over everything to persons who may command a majority. In regard to anything so sacred as popular education we have a duty to perform to the young men of Ireland—the duty of taking care that in expending the public money for the purposes of their education we expend it in the manner most favourable to their growing up, not merely with intellectual knowledge, but in peace, harmony, and concord with each other. This was the intention of Sir Robert Peel. This intention we are about to cast to the winds in the vain hope of conciliating the Roman Catholic hierarchy, of whom I wish to say nothing disrespectful, but whom we know to be bound by their creed and by the vows they have taken never to be contented as long as anything they desire with a view to the temporal and spiritual predominance of their faith and Church is withheld. Their creed is that education should be entirely in the hands of the clergy. Unless the State is prepared to surrender that point altogether—that point so manfully maintained for twenty years—they will never be satisfied. This is not a question of a little more or a little less. It is a question of maintaining mixed education or surrendering it absolutely into the hands of the clergy of different denominations in Ireland. It is said that the position of the question has changed in consequence of what has happened in England, because we have a denominational system of primary education in England. The case is not analogous. The denominational system of primary education in England is maintained mainly at the expense of the denominations. This system, in Ireland, 1456 is maintained mainly at the expense of the State. In England the State has assumed a secular position, and gives assistance to the communication of secular education. That is a, very different thing from saying that a system which is intended to teach people mutual charity and kindness is a failure—in order to establish the practice of keeping young people separate, and excluding them from that communion with each other in early life which is the greatest softener of religious animosities. If there is anything in the world worth making a stand for it is such a principle as this. I do hope that, although hon. Gentlemen below me have done everything to undermine and to destroy the system, and have packed the Senate of the University in order to bring it into accord with the feelings of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland, although the noble Lord has announced a failure where he ought to proclaim a success, I do hope there is enough of liberality in the House of Commons not to allow this noblest work of one of our greatest Ministers to be trampled under foot by bigotry and intolerance.
MR. GLADSTONEWhile the echoes of the cheers from the opposite Benches have hardly died away, I should, perhaps, take the opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) upon his having at length succeeded in awakening some small portion, at least, of that enthusiasm which was so abundantly evoked last year by his speeches on Reform. ["Question!"] I beg the hon. Members to believe that I will soon and closely enough connect this matter with the question for which they so anxiously call. I venture, Sir, to observe, that as my right hon. Friend has reaped this year the harvest of the seed he sowed last year on the subject of Reform, so perhaps he may have to reap on a future occasion the harvest of the seed he is now sowing, with respect to education in Ireland.
I must now, Sir, protest against the injustice of my right hon. Friend in the treatment he has bestowed on my hon. Friend the Member for Devonshire (Mr. Acland). He rebukes my hon. Friend for having undertaken to speak as the organ of the Liberal party. My hon. Friend claimed his right as an individual to speak for himself. He never arrogated to himself the function of speaking for the Liberal party. My right hon. Friend was not satisfied even with this injustice. He went on to another injustice yet more 1457 marked, and said my hon. Friend the Member for Devonshire had denounced the Queen's Colleges as the homes of godless education, My hon. Friend did nothing of the kind. He referred to that epithet as indicative of a sentiment that has actually prevailed among persons who have much influence and power with respect to this question, and who express the opinion of a large portion of the people of Ireland; but he did this without, in the slightest degree, appropriating the language to himself. I hope my right hon. Friend will correct the injustice he has done to my hon. Friend.
And now, Sir, I turn to other matter. I am concerned that my right hon. Friend should have felt it his duty to be the first to give an angry and controversial aspect to this debate. I had hoped from all I had before heard, that we might have discussed the subject simply with reference to the grave interests which it involves; to the future of Ireland and the relations of that country to this country. I had hoped that the tone in which the discussion had begun would have continued to the end. I hope it may resume that pacific tone I will on that account take but the briefest notice of the attack of my right hon. Friend on the late Administration. The conduct of the late Administration with respect to this subject is a perfectly legitimate subject of question in this House. Let him move in that matter when he pleases. We shall be able and ready to meet him. But one thing let him not do. Let him not profess to show that the opinions and the interests of which he is the advocate have been put to prejudice through our conduct. If he does, I must remind him and the House that during last Session, after we had lost the advantages of power, while we were in those very places we now occupy, this subject was fully discussed. We—I myself — pointedly challenged my right hon. Friend, in terms the most distinct, to raise fairly in this House an issue upon those principles of which he says he is the enthusiastic apostle. No consequences had then flowed from our conduct, or misconduct, which could embarrass him. Ample time was given before the close of the Session. He did not choose then to accept that challenge. He did not choose to submit his doctrines to the judgment of the House, and now he comes down with the pretence, for I can call it nothing better, of representing that through us, 1458 forsooth, these doctrines and their advocates have been put to prejudice. Thus far, Sir, as to my right hon. Friend. I will follow him no further into the polemical part of the question. I now go to the merits of the case.
If anything could induce me to question the wisdom of the policy of Sir Robert Peel in 1845 it would be the defence of that policy which I have heard from my right hon. Friend. But I do not impugn it; I have from the first supported it. I was not at that moment in office with Sir Robert Peel. I was an independent Member of the House. As an independent Member I cordially supported the Bill introduced by him for the foundation of the Queen's Colleges. I have never repented it. I really had thought my right hon. Friend was capable of stating, with some resemblance at any rate to fact, matters of history. But in the highly coloured rhetorical and exaggerated description he has given, I am at a loss to recognise the smallest relation to events that have occurred. Let us bring the matter to issue, and ask whether there is the slightest justice, or approach to justice, in the representation made by my right hon. Friend. It is needless to quote his words. If I use the strongest words my vocabulary can supply, my right hon. Friend will not disown them. He strained his own great resources of language to describe the violence of the course which the late Government pursued. Anybody who listened to him and knew nothing else would have supposed that we had first betrayed and then denounced the system of education pursued in the Queen's Colleges. If this were a matter of mere party contention, I should be tempted to contrast the description of sentiment, which Gentlemen opposite are so busy and so animated in cheering tonight, when Ireland is the subject of discussion, with the sentiments they cheered not less loudly on Wednesday last, when the question was what should be the system of education for England. But I pass on, and ask, is it true that we betrayed, or is it true that we denounced the Queen's Colleges? Is it true that we turned away from them the beneficence of Parliament to other objects? There is not a shadow of truth in any of those highly-coloured statements. I do not depart by one inch from the ground we have always held. I agree with him in that single sentence of his speech, that the object of the Queen's Colleges was not to give a mere secular 1459 education, but to give to Irishmen, irrespective of their creed, the benefit, by living within the precincts of the same college, of cultivating feelings of mutual friendship and goodwill, God grant that the Queen's Colleges may long prosper to fulfil that purpose! And are we not from year to year voting the money of the State for this same end? Is it not true that these Colleges are not only the recipients but the exclusive recipients of the bounty of the State? By our encouragement, down to this very hour the Colleges which my right hon. Friend says we denounced and abandoned are receiving the direct countenance and bounty of the State. The utmost that ever was urged by us in behalf of Colleges of a different description, which may be called of a denominational character is, that their students should not be put under civil disadvantages on account of the denominational character of these establishments. But when my right hon. Friend says—and I am quite sure he believes it—when he says that he is the hero and the apostle of tolerance—[Mr. LOWE: I never said so.] Well, Sir, if my right hon. Friend is prepared to admit that he is on this one occasion the champion of the grossest intolerance — ["No, no!"] — he denies having said he is the apostle of tolerance; I really want to know what he is the apostle of? [Mr. LOWE: Not an apostle.] My right hon. Friend disclaims apostleship. Upon that question I will not quarrel with my right hon. Friend. I will never call him an apostle again. At any rate, he claims to be here the champion, the advocate, the teacher—if not the apostle of tolerance. He appears here, he says, as the champion of the principles of tolerance against those principles of intolerance which he thinks were advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonshire (Mr. Acland). What are those principles of tolerance? It is very important that we should know how we stand in the matter. The conduct of the late Government is perfectly open to question and challenge. I do not ask, either directly or by implication, any approval of what they have done, or any exemption from censure, if the House shall think fit to bestow it upon them. What I do ask is that we shall consider with care the public bearings of this question as it respects the people of Ireland, and the principles on which Ireland is to be governed. In Ireland we have two Universities. One of these is what is termed 1460 a denominational University, characterized, I believe, as far as its administrators are concerned, though I have no direct knowledge on the subject, but speaking from all I have learnt, characterized by a considerable degree of kindliness and tolerance. Still it is a University necessarily-associated with that particular form of religion to which the immense majority of the Irish people do not belong. Let us see at this point how true or untrue is the representation of my right hon. Friend as to the blessed state of impartiality and justice of the existing system in Ireland with which it was so impertinent in the late Government to interfere. There is one University, denominational in character, rich in the possession of large revenues, social influence, and tradition. There is another University, modern in its construction. How does it stand compared with that which we adopted as a model for a new University in England, strictly respecting the principles of English liberty. All who chose might found in connection with this last—I mean the University of London—a college and a system of education purely secular; as denominational, as narrow, as contracted, as they pleased. That was the last and authentic declaration of the mind of Parliament with respect to the modern character of a University for England. But is that the character of the Queen's University in Ireland? No, Sir, it was limited in the granting of degrees to students proceeding from the three Queen's Colleges. It was therefore a condition that no sectarian, no special religious education should be given. Now the late Government never intended to interfere with that principle, or to withdraw from the Colleges any portion of the aid and countenance of the State afforded in the shape of solid money. What has been attempted is to put an end to a condition of things in Ireland which is a scandal to our modern notions of toleration. A state of things in which we said to the Roman Catholics and Presbyterians of that country, "If you choose to educate your children in Ireland on the same principles as we educate our children in England—namely, the principle of sending them to Colleges in which their religious creed is taught—you shall be excluded from the civil privileges of having University degrees bestowed upon your children." But even that is not the statement of the whole case. The Colleges in which we in this country have 1461 this denominational system are endowed Colleges, in possession of great wealth and privileges, rich in fame and tradition. All we ask is that in Ireland the humble institutions founded by the Roman Catholics themselves for the education of Roman Catholic youth, or by Protestants similarly minded for Protestant youth, should be—not endowed out of the public purse, not sharers in the privileges of Dublin University — but should be simply not excluded from the power of sending the youth educated in them to be examined at the Queen's University for degrees in civil branches. Is not this reasonable? It really seems that, under the name of tolerance and liberality, civil disabilities are again to be inflicted for religious belief. The opinion which leads gentlemen to have their children educated in colleges where their religion is taught as part of the system of the colleges is a religious opinion. The withholding the privilege of a degree in medicine or law on account of taking such a course is the imposition of a civil penalty. Are these civil penalties to be inflicted, or are they not, on account of religions convictions? If this is to be the case, let not these disabilities be inflicted in Ireland alone. Let us go with equal hand through the whole of the country. Let my right hon. Friend the Member for Calne apply his mild and tolerant plan to Oxford and to Cambridge. If he were to propose to do so—and I do not doubt his readiness, for I admit his impartial consistency—I should like to see the change of countenance which would be exhibited by hon. Members opposite, and to notice how dumbness and deadness would succeed to their more than strenuous cheering. In the very same speech in which my right hon. Friend proposed to inflict penalties on the corpus vile of our Irish fellow-subjects, he uttered an obiter dictum against which I must protest. He said that the Roman Catholics were induced to send their children to the Roman Catholic University by the influence of spiritual terror.
MR. GLADSTONEThat is exactly the same for the purpose of my remark. If it be so, I regret the circumstance as much as my right hon. Friend. I am as cordial and sincere a well-wisher to the Queen's Colleges as my right hon. Friend. I have undergone no change 1462 in my opinion since I first supported the proposal for their establishment, at a time when that proposal met with a formidable opposition. But now, if it be true that the laity of the Roman Catholic Church are under the coercion of spiritual terrors from their clergy, that is a great misfortune for them, and I deeply sympathize with them, Yet I earnestly protest against all attempts to relieve the Roman Catholic laity from the despotism, if such it be, of the Roman Catholic clergy, by Act of Parliament or by any proceeding of ours. That is an affair entirely for the Roman Catholics themselves. My right hon. Friend, in one of the highest flights of his rhetoric and imagination, said that I (Mr. Gladstone) had stated that the Queen's Colleges had failed.
MR. GLADSTONEI certainly see no evidence that they have failed. I should be sorry if they had failed. But there is a large portion of the people of Ireland whose wants they do not meet. Now, Sir, to conclude, when I began my observations by alluding to the course which my right hon. Friend has taken on another subject, I did so not from any idle desire—I say it from my heart—to taunt one who has earned the respect of the whole House during this Session and the last, by the uniform consistency with which, separating himself on conviction from his party, he has adhered to his opinions. But I fear in this instance, as in that, that the resistance to moderate demands will end in concessions to immoderate proposals. The Roman Catholics may hereafter plead for a direct recognition of their University, a subject upon which I give no opinion beyond what I have already—namely, that the multiplication of Universities is a great evil, and that the value and dignity of degrees depend much on the circumstances of the learned tribunals that confer them. At a future time, perhaps, the sacred bulwarks of Trinity College may be assailed; and those who stand here as their official defenders may, when the trumpet is sounded and the assault is delivered, not be found so ready in the work of defence as would be expected from their present language. They may then say, "Our objection to your measure was not that it was too large, but that it was too small. We could not stoop to your peddling proposal for merely admitting 1463 Roman Catholics and others to degrees in the Queen's University. But show us a comprehensive measure which will settle the question—show us a measure worthy of the genius and daring of great statesmen—show us a field where it will be worth while for such as we are to employ our hands, and then we are the men to do the work, and the work will be done."
LORD NAASsaid, that he had not stated that the Queen's Colleges had failed. What he said was that they had failed to attract the confidence of a considerable portion of the people of Ireland.
§ MR. PIMsaid, he hoped that the whole question would be taken up in the same large spirit in which the subject of Reform had been dealt with, and settled once for all.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.