HC Deb 03 August 1869 vol 198 cc1197-211
MR. FAWCETT

rose to move a Resolution respecting Trinity College, Dublin, and remarked that the Prime Minister, in his memorable speech in introducing the Irish Church Bill, had admitted that Trinity College must be dealt with. The question, therefore, arose whether it could be dealt with in such a manner as to place all the inhabitants of Ireland, whatever might be their religious opinions, in a position of perfect equality with regard to University education. This was a subject of vast importance. It would, of course, be idle to say that it was of so much importance as the disestablishment of the Irish Church; but, at the same time, it was no exaggeration to say that the establishment of that Church did not inflict greater injustice on the residents of Ireland who did not belong to its communion than was inflicted upon them by their being excluded from the emoluments and from many of the honours which were associated with University education. He would ask the House to picture to itself the relative positions of two youths, one a Catholic and the other a Churchman, who entered Trinity College, Dublin, together. Suppose, for instance, that they lived on terms of intimacy with each other, that they were inspired throughout their academical career by an ennobling intellectual rivalry, and that when the examinations had been concluded the Catholic student was adjudged to be somewhat the more distinguished of the two. Yet the Catholic student would go out into the world without any reward for his intellectual achievements, while the other, because he was a Churchman, would obtain a Fellowship, which was valuable not only in a pecuniary point of view, but as an honour and a distinction. That very morning a Catholic Irishman, who was a most eminent mathematician, had remarked to him— "Catholic emancipation has no doubt been a great been for the people of Ireland; but, as far as men of science and letters are concerned, it has been a dead letter. Most of the educational positions, emoluments, and honours from which we were shut out before Catholic emancipation we are shut out from still. And," he added, "this must continue until all the Fellowships, Professorships, Scholarships, and honours in Trinity College, Dublin, are thrown open to all without distinction of creed?" The question, then, was, what was the best mode of carrying out this policy of educational equality? Three schemes had been propounded with this object. First, it had been proposed to leave Trinity College in its present position, and to found in the University of Dublin Colleges for Catholics, Presbyterians, and other denominations. In his opinion such a scheme was utterly impracticable; but if practicable would prove so mischievous that he, for one, would sooner see things continued as they were. The endowments for those Colleges should be as large as that of Trinity College itself, and would amount to no less a sum than from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000. There was no Government that would propose to ask Parliament for such a sum. When the late Liberal Government proposed to give the supplemental charter to the Catholic University, they were opposed by some who were in general their most stedfast supporters, and the late Conservative Administration brought disaster on itself at the General Election in consequence of their attempts to charter and endow the Catholic University. Such a scheme would also prove pernicious in the highest degree. He was bound to confess that in Trinity College, Dublin, many of the advantages of an undenominational education were encouraged at the present time. When at Oxford and Cambridge no Roman Catholic or Dissenter could obtain a degree, no impediment was thrown in the way of Roman Catholics and Dissenters obtaining degrees at Trinity College, Dublin. The consequence had. been that in that College a great number of men of different religions had been educated and had lived in harmony together with the happiest results to their country. Many a most distinguished Roman Catholic Judge and many a distinguished Member of that House—among whom he need only mention the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Sullivan) — had been educated at Trinity College, Dublin. If, therefore, denominational Colleges were established a deadly blow would be struck at the principle of undenominational education in Ireland, and every Roman Catholic student would be withdrawn from Trinity College and sent to a Roman Catholic College. Nothing ought to be done that would discourage that mixed system of education, which was the best antidote to those religious rancours and sectarian animosities which had so long been the bane of Ireland. Another scheme, analogous to that which he had just noticed, had been proposed by the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Monsell), but it had one point of difference which made it still worse. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to endow the suggested denominational Colleges, not by public money, but by spoliating and taking away the revenues of Trinity College, Dublin, a proceeding which would inflict a great injustice upon that institution, inevitably break it up, and destroy the mixed character of its education. Without professing to be an attached friend to Trinity College, he should not hesitate to give his humble assistance and vote, if they were of any service, to defeat this attempt at spoliation. It was of a very small advantage to bring students of different religious opinions into the same examination room; what they should do was to bring them to live together in the same Colleges, under the same daily social influences, where they would become friends, and never feel that mutual antipathy and religious bigotry which, unhappily, too often were the fruits of denominational isolation. With that view they ought to free Trinity College, Dublin, from all religious disabilities. That was a scheme at once simple and practicable; it would not, in the least degree, affect the efficiency of Trinity College itself, and, instead of discouraging undenominational education, it would place it on a wider and safer basis. He understood that the authorities of that College had at last recognized the fact that it could not continue in its present position; and, unless he was misinformed, they were prepared to accept the scheme he had last described. By leaving Trinity College with its revenues untouched, and simultaneously freeing all its Professorships, Fellowships, and Scholarships from religious disabilities, they would take the course which was most likely to increase its usefulness and render it in the future still more illustrious in respect to intellectual distinction than it had been in the past. Contemporaneously with those changes certain other internal reforms in the College itself— among others the improvement of the constitution of the Board of the College, an alteration in the mode of electing to Fellowships, and the establishment of less inequality between the emoluments of the senior and the junior Fellowships — would, he was led to believe, if adopted, prove beneficial to the best interests of the institution. In conclusion, he trusted that his personal connection with that subject would cease that evening. It was the duty and the privilege of the advanced Liberal party to advocate questions which were in a minority. When their proposals had advanced to such a point as to be ripe for legislation in that House, then they ought to resign them to the Treasury Bench, the occupants of which should reap the fruits of their past efforts. In relinquishing the question of Trinity College, Dublin, he placed it in the hands of the Prime Minister with the most sincere pleasure, knowing that it would give the right hon. Gentleman another opportunity of passing a great measure of justice to Ireland. Since he had had charge of the question it had gone through many strange vicissitudes. Only last year it was thought to be so awkward and troublesome a subject that its discussion was thwarted by counting out the House at four o'clock in the afternoon. Little then had he supposed that in nine months after that "count out" the Prime Minister would admit that it was a question which must be dealt with, or that the authorities of Trinity College would themselves give a conciliatory reception to his Motion. He hoped that next Session the Government would propose a measure on the subject; and if it was based on the principle of placing all the inhabitants of Ireland, whatever might be their religious opinions, in a position of strict equality in regard to University education, it would be alike his duty and his pleasure to give it a silent but cordial support. If, however, the Government should be unwilling to do that, then he should see that the House should have an opportunity of affirming the great and important principle that the splendid educational endowments of the United Kingdom should be so administered as not to promote the opinions of any particular sect, but rather with a view to destroying the rivalry of religious rancour and of promoting the moral, mental, and material advancement of the nation.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, in the opinion of this House, those who are not members of the Established Church cannot be placed in a position of equality with regard to University Education in Ireland until all the Fellowships and Scholarships of Trinity College, Dublin, are freed from all religious disabilities."—(Mr. Fawcett.)

DR. BALL

At this period of the Session, and with the great amount of Public Business which remains undisposed of, it is impossible to enter upon the very extensive question raised by the hon. Gentleman in such a manner as its importance demands. It is quite plain that you cannot consider the ease of the University of Dublin or of Trinity College, which is in effect that University, without considering the position of the other Colleges in Ireland. In fact, you must consider, if you enter upon the question, the whole system of collegiate education in Ireland. Now, it is quite unnecessary to say that no more extensive or more important subject for discussion or investigation can be proposed. It is not with a view of entering upon this extended subject that I rise, but in consequence of a communication made to me by the Board of Trinity College, to the effect that whereas, on former occasions they did petition in opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton, they do on the present occasion feel it their duty not to petition against it or oppose it. The Board, in taking that course, have been actuated by the consideration of the change which has occurred with regard to the ecclesiastical arrangements of Ireland. The Board were of opinion —and I believe history confirms them in the opinion—that the prominent and main object of the foundation of the University of Dublin was to place a great educational institution in connection with the Church which was a very short time before established in Ireland—the same Church as had been established in England—the Protestant Episcopal Church, according to the faith of the Church of England. It was the liberality of the University itself which afterwards expanded its sphere of action and provided general education for all religious denominations; but the main object, as I have said, was originally education in connection with the Established Church. As long as that Church remained the Established Church of Ireland, it is plain that the Governing Body of the University, which the Board were, could not support a Motion which went to introduce among the Governing Body persons of other religious persuasions than that for the maintenance of which the University had been established, without infringing upon the object of the original foundation; and, therefore, when the hon. Member proposed to open the Scholarships, senior Fellowships, and membership of the Governing and Teaching Body to the professors of different creeds, the University heretofore opposed the Motion. But now when the Legislature has, by the Irish Church Act of this Session, terminated the connection between the Protestant Episcopal Church and the State and the policy on which that connection was founded, the Board feel that they are no longer called upon or in a position to oppose the Motion. And here I wish to call the attention of the House — because in this respect I do not think that justice has been done to the University—to the fact that long since they opened all their Professorships, except those connected with the Divinity School, and all their other honours and emoluments, except Fellowships, to persons of every religion. The offices limited to Protestants are— 1, Fellowships; 2, Foundation Scholarships; and 3, Professorships confined to Fellows, or ex-Fellows, which are as follows:—Regius Professorship of Divinity, Archbishop King's ditto, Hebrew, (salary only £60), and Lectureships in the Divinity School. All other Professorships, without distinction, are open to Roman Catholics and Dissenters. For example — Feudal and English Law, salary £700; Civil Law, salary £210; Anatomy, emoluments over £1,200 (now held by a Presbyterian); Chemistry, emoluments nearly £1,000; Surgery, Botany, and all other Professorships in the School of Medicine; all the professorships in the Engineering School, that of Political Economy—which is at present held by a Roman Catholic— Sanscrit, Arabic, and the Professorships of modern languages. The Arabic Professor is a Mahomedan. All the Medical Professorships were opened to persons of all religious denominations, by an Act passed in the year 1867, promoted by the Board, and with their sanction. Fourteen University Studentships —the entire number—are open to Roman Catholics; three are actually held by Roman Catholics: all University honours and prizes, without distinction, except those in the Divinity School (the amount annually distributed is about £1,000); and all Exhibitions, except those which by original foundation are limited to Divinity students or sons of clergymen are also open. Now, taking as the basis what the Board had laid down for itself, that the University was con- nected with an. Established Church, and was founded in the interest of that Church, I say, with the exception of the Fellowships which, as connected with the Governing Body, they considered to be essentially and intrinsically connected with this primary and paramount interest, they have always shown the greatest liberality to persons of a different religious persuasion. They opened all the various prizes and Professorships, with the exceptions that I have stated; and, as I have mentioned before, at this moment there are Roman Catholics holding these College emoluments. The number of Roman Catholics and Dissenters educated at the University has always borne a fair proportion to the number of Episcopalians, and there has always been a large number of persons not members of the Established Church receiving their education there. For myself, I must say that I believe one of the greatest benefits ever conferred on the country was that this University at an early period admitted persons of all persuasions to the advantages of education. I admit that the Professorships and other offices have been opened only in recent years—I believe since the Union; but before the Union Roman Catholics and Dissenters were admitted to education in the University, and from that period to the present time no man has ever said there was any attempt to interfere with the religion of any person educated in the University; no man has ever complained of the way in which the Roman Catholic students were dealt with, as regards the distribution of the honours or advantages held out to them. The confidence which this honourable conduct created led to a large proportion of the Roman Catholics, distinguished in the legal and medical professions and in public life, receiving their education in Trinity College. Protestant and Catholic met together to pursue the same studies and imbibe the elevated and generous sentiments which those studies inspire. Hence arose mutual esteem and respect, friendships and intimacies, mitigating and softening differences of opinion upon public questions in after life. One of the most important testimonies in support of the principles which ought to be kept in mind in any legislation on this subject, is a petition by the Roman Catholic laity of Ireland to the Irish House of Commons, in 1795, at the time when Maynooth was founded. The petition was presented by their great advocate, Henry Grattan, in opposition to that foundation, and on what ground? On the ground that Maynooth, which originally was not confined to ecclesiastics, but was open to laymen, was to be devoted to Roman Catholics, while Protestants were to be excluded. That petition says— The petitioners submit that if the youth of both religions were instructed together in those branches of classical education which are the same for all; their peculiar tenets would be no hindrance hereafter to a friendly and liberal intercourse through life; that the petitioners having received the permission of having their youth educated along with the Protestant youth of the kingdom in the University of Dublin, and experience having fully demonstrated the wisdom and utility of that permission, they see with deep concern the principle of separation and exclusion revived and re-enacted. This is an extremely remarkable document, and it is the only one in which, as far as I am aware, the educated Roman Catholic laity of Ireland have expressed their opinions on the subject. The only observation I wish now to make in reference to the general question, is to express my earnest hope that in any future legislation, nothing will be done which shall have the slightest tendency to diminish the beneficial effect that is to be derived from men of every variety of religious opinion being educated together, and living on terms of intimacy from the earliest period of their lives.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

I hope it will not be considered unreasonable if I request the hon. Member who has brought this subject forward (Mr. Fawcett) not to press his Motion to a division, or, if in case he should not yield to my appeal, I move the Previous Question. I fully admit that the two speeches we have just heard are speeches of very great interest upon a most important question. The speech of the hon. Member for Brighton was marked by all the sincerity and earnestness which he always brings to bear on this important subject; and the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the University (Dr. Ball) has shown a spirit most creditable to the right hon. Gentleman and to the great institution he represents. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he does not object to the Motion of the hon. Mem- ber on the part of those whom he represents; but there is a ground upon which the Government and, I think, the House cannot accept the Motion as it stands. The Resolution of the hon. Member for Brighton implies more than we can with prudence or safety accept, with due consideration for those whose interests and feelings we are bound to consider. The Motion is couched in strong and even indignant terms; it calls upon the House to affirm that a certain change in the University system of Ireland is the only change that can satisfy the claims of justice or, I presume, the rights and feelings of the people of Ireland; but it is a question whether the change asked for is in accordance with the feelings of those who have a right to complain of the present educational system of Ireland. Upon that point I am bound to say we have not sufficient evidence to bring us to an affirmative conclusion; indeed, on the contrary, we have reason to believe, from the long controversies which have already occurred upon the subject, and from the further controversy which may be anticipated, that the change demanded by the Motion before us would not by itself satisfy those who believe themselves aggrieved by the system of education in Ireland as regards the higher branches. The Motion of the hon. Member implies that the great University College of Dublin, Trinity College, shall be thrown open to all comers without religious tests being imposed upon those who are to enjoy any of its emoluments or dignities. With that doctrine I am certainly not here to quarrel; but what I have to say is that, judging from the experience of the past, that doctrine does not meet all the views of large bodies of the Irish people, because their grievance is not that they cannot obtain the dignities and emoluments of Trinity College, Dublin, in consequence of the religious tests imposed, but that a large part of the Irish population are unable to obtain a University degree without passing through Colleges constructed upon a system which is not approved by their consciences. That is the grievance with which we have been often asked to deal, and it is not met by the Motion of the hon. Member. We all know that there is no access in Ireland to a University degree except through the Queen's Colleges and the Queen's University on the one hand, or through Trinity College and the University of Dublin on the other; this is a matter of complaint by a large body of the Irish people, and the change suggested by the hon. Member would not satisfy the complainers, although it goes a long way in another direction in which the hon. Member has my sympathies largely with him; the change suggested, in fact, gives no opening for the attainment of a University degree except through Colleges constructed on the principle of mixed education. This is the only objection I have to the hon. Member's Motion, but it is an objection which makes it impossible for the Government to endorse it in its present form. I have listened with great satisfaction to a great deal that has been said by my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend on this subject; but I am bound not to limit the action of the Government or of Parliament to the change suggested, inasmuch as the Motion evidently excludes any other change in the higher branches of the Irish educational system. Perhaps the hon. Member will excuse me if I point out one circumstance of a general nature of vital consequence which must be taken into consideration in dealing with this matter. The difficulty of framing a satisfactory educational system is far greater in a case where you have, as in Ireland, to deal with a Protestant and a Roman Catholic population, than where you have, as in England or Scotland, to deal only with a variety of Protestant denominations. That is a circumstance which is continually forcing itself upon me as one who knows something of these questions both in England and in Ireland; and those whose experience is derived simply from educational affairs in England or Scotland are very often misled by that experience when they come to review an educational system designed to meet the wants of a people composed of Protestants and Roman Catholics. The difficulties in our way are obviously, for this reason, far greater in the case of Ireland than in the case of Scotland or England, and demand from us corresponding caution. Feeling therefore, and asserting on the part of the Government, the duty of dealing with that grievance of a large portion of the people of Ireland to which I have alluded — the grievance that they cannot gain a University degree in their own country without doing violence to their conscience—I am bound to say I am not able to pledge the Government to the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member. Perhaps as the hon. Member has by bringing forward his Motion re-excited interest in the subject, and, as I fully admit, that it will be the duty of the Government to deal with it, he will not think it necessary to divide the House upon the question.

MR. FAWCETT

said, that if he had to consider simply in the light of the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he should divide the House or not, he would be obliged at all risks to divide, because he disagreed so entirely from every sentiment the right hon. Gentleman had expressed, and because the whole tone of his remarks was so contradictory of the true principles of Liberalism. But many Irish Members had left the House, and the present attendance was so meagre that a division would not probably test the feeling of the House, and for this reason he proposed to withdraw his Motion. He had listened to the two speeches that had been delivered from the front Benches, and pronounced them the most remarkable and perhaps the most significant he had listened to since he had been in Parliament. The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University (Dr. Ball) was liberal and enlightened, and he agreed with every word of it; indeed, he was bound in candour to say he had never heard the advantages of undenominational education put more forcibly than when he described the benefits which result from bringing persons of different religious opinions within the educational advantages of Trinity College. This Motion, which was too wide and sweeping to be accepted by the Government, was, according to the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, already accepted by the institution which we were accustomed to look upon as the centre of Conservatism. As a supporter of the Government, he believed it best that if he meant to oppose their policy he should frankly tell them so in time. In reply to the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he would observe that he thought the whole line of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman pointed clearly, distinctly, and unmistakably to the establishment of de- nominational Colleges in Ireland; and of all schemes that could be proposed there was none that he should feel it his duty so warmly and so strenuously to oppose. In this respect his opinions were those of the English and the Scotch constituencies, and of the great majority of the Liberal Members. What did the Secretary for Ireland mean to do in order to carry out his scheme of denominational education? His Government had already tried their hand at founding a denominational College; they attempted to force a supplemental charter upon the Queen's University. ["No, no!"] It was not the present Government, but it was the late Liberal Government, of which many right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench were Members. They attempted to grant a supplemental charter to the Queen's University; he opposed the Motion, and he knew something about it; and, but for the determination of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe), the unfortunate scheme would have been carried out. Remembering what occurred last year, he would add that, if there were any force or reason in the remarks of the Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman was bound to support the scheme of Lord Mayo for the establishment of a Catholic University. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, he could well have supposed it was Lord Mayo come back to advocate the policy of "levelling up." Although he would not divide the House, he trusted the Government would re-consider their opinions upon this question. He would earnestly and emphatically entreat them to remember, before it was too late, that there was nothing which the Liberal party in this country and in Scotland more deeply cherished, and were more firmly pledged to, than the carrying out of undenominational education. In conclusion, he begged to withdraw the Motion.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, he would not have risen but for the remarks just made. There were men who assumed to themselves a peculiar Liberalism, and who would ride to death theories which they believed to be imbued with Liberalism; but they were not liberal in attempting to force their own favourite abstract ideas on multitudes of people. Now, it was to him a subject of regret that an hon. Gentleman, a Professor of a distinguished University, should get up in that House, and, speaking on behalf of Liberalism, put forward a theory which he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) as a Liberal Member begged to repudiate. He would also inform that hon. Gentleman that if he would have regard to true Liberalism he must consult the feelings of the people for whom it was proposed to legislate. The hon. Gentleman had said that anyone who knew Ireland would share his opinion. Did the hon. Gentleman, in the presence of the Irish representatives, mean to assume that he spoke with the authority of a Delphic Oracle on this subject? He might profess to know as much of his own country as the learned Professor, and his belief was that the Resolution proposed by the hon. Gentleman would find no favour with the great mass of the people; but an idea had been put forward by a Member of the Government which might be fairly accepted as a compromise between those who wanted an essentially denominational system and those who wished for a University open to all. It had been stated that it was possible to connect with the University of Dublin colleges for Catholics and Presbyterians, who, having received their education in their own Colleges, might enter into fair and honourable competition with men of all opinions and creeds, in the examination of the University for the degrees which it might confer. he merely rose to protest against the assumption on the part of the hon. Gentleman of a peculiar Liberalism. He not unfrequently found that men who spoke most about liberty were, in regard to all questions about which they entertained peculiar theories which were not accepted, the most illiberal and dogmatic.

MR. BRUCE

said, his object in rising was to protest against the distortion of the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland of which the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had been guilty, no doubt, unintentionally, and to his entire misrepresentation of the conduct of the Government of Earl Russell with respect to the proposal of a supplemental charter for the Queen's University. "What the right hon. Gentleman said was that he objected to the Motion of the hon. Member because it did not provide for that which was the great need of Ireland, which was an examining body for all Ireland—the creation, either in the University of Dublin or elsewhere, of a body to which all persons, whether coming from Colleges, denominational schools, or elsewhere, might go for a degree. With reference to the project of the Government of Earl Russell, he would speak of what he knew, because he was in Ireland at the time, and had much to do with the negotiation of the matter; and he affirmed most distinctly that there was nothing in that negotiation which had for its object the encouragement of denominational education, or the discouragement of the mixed system pursued in the Queen's Colleges. All that was proposed by the Government of Earl Russell was that the charter of the Queen's University might be so enlarged that it might examine not only the members of the Queen's Colleges, with which it was not proposed to meddle, but all persons who might present themselves from any part of Ireland. That was the simple object of what was proposed, and it had nothing of the character which was imputed to it, and which the hon. Member for Brighton represented it to have. When the hon. Member first brought similar charges against the Government of Lord Russell, they had been explicitly contradicted; and now that they were repeated he could not refrain from repeating the denial of their accuracy or justice.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.