Commons Sitting of 26 July 1877

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Great Grimsby, v. John Chapman, esquire, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation
1852
(Atherton, &c.)* [265]—(Caistor Union, &c)* [266].
Second Reading—University Education (Ireland) [55], put off; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Hyde, &c.)* [263].
Committee—Prisons (Ireland) (re-comm.)* [219]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Fisheries (Oysters, Crabs, and Lobsters) (re-comm.)* [257].
Considered as amended—Building Societies Act (1874) Amendment* [243].
Third Reading—Solway Salmon Fisheries* [250], and passed.

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND)—ORANGE PROCESSION AT LURGAN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VEENERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will be good enough to state why a procession of loyal Orangemen was prevented from taking the direct route through the town of Lurgan on the 12th of this month; and, if this was done in consequence of the receipt of an information, by whom was that information sworn?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: A large procession of Orangemen, stated to have numbered 10,000 persons, marched through Lurgan on the 12th of July. Their leaders had expressed a determination to march through a street inhabited by Roman Catholics, and informations were sworn before the magistrates by three persons that if this were permitted serious rioting would result. The magistrates, consisting of three stipendiary and four local magistrates, were unanimously of opinion, not only from these informations, but from other circumstances, that the procession must be prevented from passing through the street in question. They called in a considerable extra force of military and constabulary, and their decision was carried into effect without any breach of the peace. I may state that a similar course was followed at Lurgan last August with reference to a Roman Catholic procession. I do not think any useful object would be gained by giving the names of the persons who swore the informations; and., on the other hand, it might render them obnoxious to party feeling, which I am sorry to say appears to be very high in Lurgan at present.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—BETTON'S CHARITY.—QUESTION.
  MR. JAMESasked the Vice President of the Council, If it is the fact that the revenues of John Betton's Charity, amounting to £6,000, are as rearranged by the Court of Chancery in 1846 at present distributed in small sums ranging from £5 to £10 to certain voluntary schools in England and Wales; whether his attention has been called to a report of the Endowments Committee of the London School Board, which states that the reasons assigned for this distribution of the bequest are wholly insufficient; and, if the Government propose to take any steps which may lead to the restoration of this property for the purpose of educating the children of the metropolis co-extensively with the city of London and its suburbs, the area originally specified under John Betton's will?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: The Charity Commissioners inform me that it is a fact, as the hon. Gentleman imagines, that £6,000 a-year, being a portion of the revenues of Betton's Charity, is distributed in the manner he mentions among "charity schools" in England and Wales, but they have no information as to whether these schools are voluntary or not. No communication has been made to me respecting the Report referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The Charity Commissioners inform me that some misapprehension appears to exist, from the Question of the hon. Gentleman, as to this Charity. They state that there was no direction of the founder that the benefits of the fund, to which the Question relates, should be limited to the area of the City of London and its suburbs; but that under the will one-fourth part of the charity, being a distinct fund from that alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, is assigned to "charity schools" in the City of London and its suburbs, and that this trust is strictly observed. In these circumstances the Government, as at present advised, does not see any reason for interference in the matter.

ARMY—DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. COWENasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will inform the House how many soldiers were dis-
  1854
  charged from the British Army in 1876 as medically unfit for service, and how many of them had not seen three years' service?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, the number was 3,768. He was unable to say how many of them had not seen three years' service, and it would take a long time to collect the figures from the different districts; but if the hon. Member really thought it of sufficient importance, and he would move for the Return, there would be no objection to it on the ground of expense.

  ARMY—MEDALS—THE MALAY CAMPAIGN.—QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the scale of the special allowances to the officers and men serving in the late campaign in the Malay Peninsula has been fixed, and at what rate, and for what period of service; and, whether he can say how soon the allowances in question will be paid?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, the delay was owing to the fact that Indian as well as English troops were engaged, and the War Office and the India Office had different rates of allowance; but he had sent a letter to the Treasury, asking its sanction to special allowances to these troops, and as soon as that sanction was obtained the allowance would be paid.

INLAND REVENUE—STAMP OFFICE AT MONAGHAN.—QUESTION.
MR. FAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Executive to restore the Stamp Office of Monaghan to its position as a head office, in conformity with the Resolution in that behalf passed by the Grand Jury of the county of Monaghan at last Assizes, such Resolution having been based on the grounds of public convenience; and, whether, if it is the intention of the Government to comply with such Resolution, the present Distributor of Stamps at Monaghan, who has held that office for sixteen years, will be appointed as such Head Distributor on entering into proper securities?
MR. W. H. SMITH: The Stamp Office of Monaghan has been for upwards of 16 years in charge of a subdistributor, who is subordinate to the

1855
head distributor at Dundalk. No alteration in his position has been made or is contemplated by the Board of Inland Revenue; but inquiries have been ordered as to the recommendation of the Grand Jury that Monaghan should be made a head office.

METROPOLIS—INDIAN AND COLONIAL MUSEUM—THE FIFE HOUSE SITE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRANT DUFFasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can engage that no decision will be come to during the Recess with reference to the Fife House Site, which may render it unavailable for the erection thereon of a Museum which may adequately represent the natural productions, manufactures, and arts of the Colonies and India; provided that the Colonies and India are prepared to take their fair share in an undertaking which is intended for the common advantage of all parts of Her Majesty's Dominions?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, without expressing any opinion as to the propriety of erecting a Museum for India and. the Colonies, said, that no arrangement, would be made during the Recess which would not leave the Fife House site available for any purpose to which it might be desired to appropriate it.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND)—CATHOLIC PRISONERS AT PERTH.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING (for Mr. Redmond)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is a fact that the Roman Catholic paid chaplain of Perth Prison is not permitted to say Mass on Sundays in the Prison for the Roman Catholic prisoners, or that no facilities are provided to enable him to do so; and, if any provision whatever is made for the religious wants of Roman Catholics in the other prisons of Scotland?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I have been informed that the Catholic priest at Perth has the use of the prison chapel on Saturdays for whatever purpose he chooses, and that he has never complained to the Governor about those arrangements. I have received a letter which enables me to answer the Question. It says that the priest himself is busy on Sunday with
  1856
  his own parochial duties. Special application has been made, I believe, in respect to one or two prisons for a room in which Mass could be celebrated, and one, I know, has been granted. With regard to other prisons, I am not aware of the arrangements made by the local authorities, nor could I learn them without special inquiry; but I believe the fact to be that the Catholic clergymen in the neighbourhood are entitled just as much as are any other clergymen not of the Established Church to visit those prisoners who belong to their religion or Church.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—CHUCKPOINT PIER.—QUESTION.
  MR. R. POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is intended to carry out the recommendations of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries with regard to the improvement of the pier at Chuckpoint, in the county of Waterford; and, whether, as would appear from the last report of the inspectors, it is contemplated by the Treasury to entertain no further applications for grants for fishing piers and harbours for some time in consequence of the proposed improvements at the harbours of Arklow and Ardglass?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: It is not intended to carry out the recommendation of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries with respect to the pier at Chuckpoint at present. All works of this kind cannot be proceeded with at once, and some will no doubt be postponed until the completion of Ardglass Harbour, though others besides that harbour are now in course of construction.

METROPOLIS BUILDING ACTS—HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the honourable and gallant Member for Truro, Whether his attention has been called to buildings of an enormous height now in course of erection near St. James's Park; whether any inquiry has been made how far buildings of such height are calculated to injure the neighbours by shutting out air and light; and, whether the Board of Works has power to place any limit to the height of

  1857
  buildings; and, if not, if he proposes to make application to Parliament for such powers?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL HOGG: In reply to the Questions of the hon. Member, I beg to inform him that the attention of the Metropolitan Board of Works has been directed to the buildings to which he refers near to St. James's Park. No inquiry has been made as to how far buildings of such height are calculated to injure the neighbours, who would, I apprehend, be able to assert their legal rights if injuriously affected as regards light and air. The rules of the Building Acts at present in force are calculated for walls up to 100 feet in height; but, where it is intended to exceed that height a discretionary power is given to the Board, which they have not felt justified in refusing to exercise in the present instance, having regard to the unusual strength and stability of the building. A Bill was introduced by me in 1874, which would have dealt with this question, but it did not receive the sanction of Parliament; and up to the present time the Board has not come to any resolution to renew their application for further powers.

EAST INDIA IRRIGATION COMPANY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SMOLLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the term of three years of grace given to the East India Irrigation Company in 1874, for repayment of their debenture debt having expired, that association is now prepared to repay by instalments portions of the capital debt contracted many years ago; and, whether, if neither capital nor interest be paid, legal measures will be taken to enforce payment?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman is sufficiently acquainted with the past complicated transactions between the Indian Government and the Madras Irrigation Company to obviate the necessity of my recapitulating them. No interest on the sums advanced by the Government of India has been paid, and a considerable portion of the principal, though due, has not been repaid. In dealing with the Company Lord Salisbury's one object has been to diminish the annual loss imposed hitherto upon
  1858
  the Indian Exchequer, and if legal measures will facilitate that end, he will not hesitate to resort to them.

GIBRALTAR—THE ORDINANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering that a fuller discussion of the matters involved is desirable than can be obtained by question and answer in the House, he will afford facilities for the discussion at an early period of the ordinance affecting the colony of Gibraltar?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he had been in communication with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon) on the subject referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and he entirely agreed that it would be desirable a discussion should be held before the ordinance was confirmed. He could not say with much certainty whether it would be possible to find a day for the discussion during the present Session; but if one should not be found, the noble Lord thought that the ordinance might stand over until the beginning of next Session.

NAVY—H.M.S. "INFLEXIBLE."

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he has any, and, if so, what objection to the addition of three Members of this House to the Committee appointed to inquire into the stability and safety of H.M.S. "Inflexible?"
  MR. A. F. EGERTON: In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to say that the Admiralty are satisfied they have appointed a Committee perfectly competent to form a just judgment on the questions respecting the Inflexible, to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred. Under those circumstances, I consider it would be unnecessary and inexpedient to make any addition to that Committee either by Members of this House or by any other persons.

STREET TRAFFIC (METROPOLIS).

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department,

  1859
  Whether there is any Law or Regulation relating to the Metropolis for preventing waggons or carts stopping in the streets for an indefinite time for the purposes of loading and unloading, or for preventing the public thoroughfares being blocked for a great part of the day, as in Covent Garden and other places; and, if so, whether the police have instructions to enforce such Law or Regulation?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The police regulations for managing the traffic in the streets of the Metropolis are based upon the Police and Highway Acts. Carts and waggons are not entitled to remain longer than necessary for loading and unloading, and it is for the police to see that such regulation is complied with. Covent Garden is an exception; the area being wholly inadequate for the requirements of the trade. During market hours the approaches are occupied by vehicles, but after market hours they are cleared for ordinary traffic—a special staff of police being employed.

INDIA—AFFAIRS OF KHELAT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRANT DUFFasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State in Council has sent any reply to the Despatch from the Government of India relative to the affairs of Khelat, dated 23rd March 1877; if so, whether there is any objection to laying it upon the Table; and, further, when the Papers relating to the new frontier administration will be in the hands of Members?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Secretary of State has not yet sent any reply to the despatch referred to. The Frontier Re-organization Papers are in the printer's hands in an advanced state, and may be expected to be in the hands of Members at an early date.

  ARMY—TROOPS FOR FOREIGN SERVICE.—QUESTIONS.
  COLONEL NAGHTENasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is a fact that the 37th Regiment has been called upon to supply men to other regiments than its linked battalion, and that more than 100 men of that regiment have received bounty to volunteer, and have embarked for foreign service this week; whether, in time of peace, it is intended that
  1860
  regiments should be made up to their strength by such means; and, whether this demand for men arises from there being so many youths in regiments at Aldershot unfit for active service?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: My hon. and gallant Friend's Question has been entirely altered since he first gave Notice of it. It is not the fact that this regiment has been called upon to supply men to any other regiment than its linked battalion, nor have any of the men embarked; nor, so far as I am aware, are any going to do so.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONasked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether the troops already despatched, and those about to be sent to the Mediterranean, have been provided with the regulation light helmets and light clothing for the Mediterranean and India?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Of course, Sir, the regulations have been observed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—THE "CAIRO."—QUESTION.
MR. MELDONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the inquiry into the supposed loss of the "Cairo," promised by him on the 12th April to be instituted, has been held; and, if so, what is the result; whether he can give any information on the subject of the loss or supposed loss of the ship; whether (as also promised) any of Her Majesty's ships or any private ship has been directed to call at Goff Island or elsewhere to search for the crew and passengers of the "Cairo;" and, whether any hope can be held out to the parents and relatives of the persons who were on board that the crew and passengers are safe?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: The inquiry into the supposed loss of the Cairo was opened before the Wreck Commissioners on the 30th of May, and as it appeared that important evidence could be given by the crew of the Strathdon, an adjournment was made for the arrival of that ship, which may now be very shortly expected. I have no information to give to the hon. and learned Gentleman. None of Her Majesty's ships have yet since visited Tristan d'Acunha or Goff Island, nor has any private vessel been engaged for the purpose; but the Admiralty inform me that they are not losing sight of the

1861
subject. I am quite unable to say whether hope can or cannot be held out of the safety of the crew and passengers, as no one knows the nature, cause, or place of the disappearance of the missing ship.

ARMY PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT—INCREASE OF CHARGES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private Notice. I wish to ask, Whether the cost of the Government scheme of promotion and retirement for the Household Cavalry, Guards, and Line will exceed or fall short of that of the scheme proposed by the Commissioners—that is to say, £1,384,000 annually for the first five years, as against the present charge of £920,000; whether the permanent increased charge to the public over and above the present expenditure will exceed or fall short of £350,000 annually, as estimated by the Commissioners; and what proportion of these increased charges will fall upon the Indian Exchequer?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I will reply as fully as I can to the Questions which the hon. Member has addressed to MR. As far as I can ascertain the cost of the Government scheme of promotion and retirement will fall short of the Estimate of the Commissioners, and the permanent increased charges will also fall short of that Estimate. With respect to what proportion of the increased charge will fall upon the Indian Exchequer, it is impossible, at present, to ascertain that fact, as it depends upon a variety of contingencies which will be taken into consideration as they arise.
  MR. TREVELYANgave Notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Supplementary Estimate for Promotion and. Retirement in the Army, he should move—
  "That this House, while fully prepared to consider the question of Retirement with a view to secure a sufficient flow of Promotion in the Army, cannot, at this late period of the Session, proceed to sanction a scheme which demands mature and careful consideration, inasmuch as it entails a large increase of expenditure on the English and Indian Exchequers, and materially affects the future of our Military system."

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS—CASE OF JOHN JERMY.—QUESTION.
  MR. COLMANasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the case of John Jermy, a pauper child in the county of Norfolk; whether it is a fact that he was more than twelve years old when the board of guardians compelled him to give up work and attend school; and, whether the guardians are justified in preventing the son of a pauper parent from earning his livelihood till he is fourteen years of age unless he has passed the third standard?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, My attention has not been called to this case except by the Question, and it has been impossible to make inquiry, as the hon. Gentleman has not specified the Union to which the child belongs. But, in truth, there was no occasion to make inquiry; for, on the facts stated, there is no doubt that the Guardians were not only justified in withholding, but that they are prohibited from giving out-door relief to any pauper whose child, being between the ages of 5 and 14, has not attained the Third Standard, and is not provided with elementary education—that is, is not attending school.

PARLIAMENT—OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer having given Notice yesterday that he would, tomorrow, submit to the House some proposition on the subject of the conduct of the Business of the House generally, I wish to ask him whether he is now able to state to the House the terms of the proposals he intends to make? I wish further to ask him whether, in his opinion, it would not be desirable that the discussion upon those proposals should be taken upon his proposals, without reference to any personal matter whatsoever; and, in that case, whether he would be prepared to consider the expediency of moving that the Order for resuming the adjourned debate on the Motion submitted by him in reference to the conduct of the hon. Member for Meath be discharged?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not able, Sir, at the pre-

1863
sent moment to give the exact terms of the Resolution which I shall submit to the House to-morrow, but I can state the general effect of them, and I will place the terms on the Paper during the evening. I intend to propose two Resolutions, which will be in substance something of this kind. The first will be that, when any Member, after having been more than once declared out of Order, shall be pronounced by the Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, to be wilfully defying the authority of the Speaker or the Chairman, the debate shall be at once suspended; and on Motion being made in the House, such Member shall not be heard during the remainder of the debate or the sitting of the Committee, such Motion being put after the Member has been heard without further discussion. I do not pledge myself to these exact words, but it will be some Motion of that character. The second Resolution will be to the effect that there should be a restriction in Committee upon Members being allowed to move either to report Progress or that the Chairman do leave the Chair more than once. It will be for the convenience of the House that I should bring these Resolutions forward at the commencement of Business tomorrow, and I shall move that they have precedence over the other Orders of the Day. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it would be for the convenience of the House that we should not mix up the discussion with the Motion relating to the conduct of Mr. Parnell, and I will, therefore, at once move that the Order for the adjourned debate on the proceedings of Mr. Parnell be read and discharged.
Motion agreed to.
Order read, and discharged.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 55.]
  (Mr. Butt, The O' Conor Don, Mr. Mitchell Henry, Mr. MacCarthy, Mr. Sullivan.)
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 55.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. BUTTsaid: In moving that this Bill be now read a second time, I believe
    1864
    it would be more convenient for the House that I should accompany the Motion by a statement not only of the leading features of the measure but also of the principles and views with which it has been framed. It will be in the recollection of the House that last year I introduced a Bill on this subject containing similar provisions. I then made a statement of the nature of those provisions. The Bill, of which I now propose the second reading, is essentially the same as last year. There have been modifications in some of its provisions. Early in the present year a conference took place between myself and my hon. Friends the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), and the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. MacCarthy), and four Prelates of the Roman Catholic Church. My hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), who have placed their names with mine at the back of the Bill, were unable to attend the conference. The four Prelates who were present were the Archbishop of Armagh (the Primate), the Archbishop of Cashel, the Bishop of Ardagh, and the Bishop of Elphin. In consequence of the conference some modifications have been made, to which, when I state the provisions of the Bill, I will call the attention of the House. But still, Sir, this Bill is my own. I last year carefully prepared it, after asking for information from all those who I thought would be most likely to enable me to form a correct judgment upon the feelings and opinions of those for whose benefit it was intended. The chief characteristic is that it provides, or endeavours to provide, for the defect that everyone admits to exist in the University institutions of Ireland by establishing and endowing a second College in the University of Dublin; but I feel also that the question comes now in a different way before the House from that in which I was able to present it last year. It is quite true that there has been no formal acceptance of this Bill by the Roman Catholic hierarchy; but yet, Sir, when we find that Petitions have come from the people of Ireland, signed by more than 112,000 persons, with the assent of the Roman Catholic Clergy, I think we may assume that the 61 Members of Parliament who signed a requisition on the subject to the Chancellor of

    1865
    the Exchequer were well warranted in stating that they had every reason to believe that this Bill would give satisfaction to the Irish people, and would be accepted by the Roman Catholic Prelates—an impression, Sir, which, so far as I myself and my Friends are concerned, was more than borne out by the conference in which we took a part. I am far from saying that this is a Bill which the Roman Catholic hierarchy would frame if they had the power of legislating on the subject. No collective opinion has been pronounced, and I have therefore no authority to speak for the hierarchy. I know that there are some of them who would prefer a separate Roman Catholic University as a second College; but I have better authority than any mere verbal conversations for stating that they are ready to accept the institution of a second College in the University of Dublin, provided that second College is formed in accordance with the just claims of the Catholic people. In 1871 a Pastoral was issued to the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, which was signed by all the Roman Catholic Prelates, and in that Pastoral, after stating the points which they considered necessary to be observed in any University institution intended for the Catholic people, they thus express themselves—
    "All this can, we believe, be attained by modifying the constitution of the Dublin University, so as to admit of the establishment of a second College within it in every respect equal to Trinity College, and conducted on purely Catholic principles, in which your Bishops shall have full control in all things regarding faith and morals, securing thereby the spiritual interests of your children, placing at the same time Catholics on a perfect equality with Protestants, as to degrees, emoluments, and other advantages."
    Now, Sir, what I ask the House to do in reading this Bill a second time is not to sanction every detail in which I have endeavoured to meet this proposal of the Bishops, but only to assent to the principle that we should endeavour to meet it. It would be great presumption in me to say that I had succeeded in framing a plan by which all the difficulties that surround such an attempt had been overcome; but I can sincerely say that I am not without hopes that if you sanction the principle, and that if either the Ministry by a Royal Commission, or this House by a Select Committee, endeavour honestly and fairly to
    1866
    collect the opinions and to meet the views of all those who must be consulted on such a measure, and if all parties in Ireland will act with forbearance and moderation, a measure may be framed upon the lines of that which I introduce which will give satisfaction to the Irish nation. I trust the House will permit me to say one word upon a subject upon which I cannot say more. I would ask of every Member of this House, whatever exasperation he may feel at any occurrences that have taken place, not to visit that upon the measure, but to deal with it upon the broad and great principles upon which such a measure should be decided. No greater calamity could befall this House than if any feelings of resentment at the conduct of individuals were to influence their vote upon a question which concerns not individuals but a nation. In approaching this question we must first consider the amount of revenue derived from State endowments which is now applied to the purposes of University education in Ireland. Ireland has two Universities—the Dublin University, composed only of Trinity College, and the Queen's University, instituted in 1845, with its three Colleges at Cork, Galway, and Belfast. To use a phrase which I find commonly employed in the Report of the English University Commissioners—the "external income"—meaning that derived from endowments and not from students' fees—at Trinity College does not much exceed £40,000 a-year. In 1854 a Royal Commission estimated its external income at £30,000 a-year. A more recent Return of the hon. Member for Longford fixes it as high as £43,000. I am not concerned to account for the difference. I believe that in the last Return there is included the annual produce of a sum paid to the College in compensation for the loss of ecclesiastical advowsons. Possibly there are also included in it an annual income of £2,000 derived from a gift of an estate by the corporation of Dublin at the foundations of the College, and about an equal sums derived from an estate left to them by Provost Baldwin—neither of which may, perhaps, be properly called State endowments. But it is enough for me to say that at no time has the income derived from State endowments for Trinity College amounted to £45,000, even includ-

    1867
    ing an estate yielding about £1,000 a-year which has been left separately to the Provost. The Queen's Colleges have each £7,000 a-year settled on the Consolidated Fund. That is beyond the control of this House. This year we have voted in the Estimates for the Queen's University £4,634, and for the Colleges £11,800; but of this latter sum about £6,000 is repaid by fees collected from pupils, and which, under an arrangement with the Treasury are paid into the Public Exchequer. This, therefore, would leave the grant voted this year for the Queen's Colleges at something like £10,000. In addition to this there is a small Vote for the repairs and maintenance of buildings which in the Colleges is borne by the Public Exchequer. This would leave the sum derived from public sources of University institutions in Ireland thus:—Por Trinity College, derived from endowments of land, £43,000 a-year; for the Queen's University and the Colleges composing it, £21,000, settled by Act of Parliament; and £10,000 voted on the Colleges; making the endowment of the Dublin University £43,000, and of the Queen's Colleges £33,000, or altogether, £76,000. It would surprise hon. Members, some of whom had talked of the enormous wealth of Trinity College, to be told that the University of Dublin has only £10,000 a-year more of endowment than the Queen's University and its Colleges. Now, I will ask the House for a moment to contrast this provision with that made for University education in England. We have voted this year for the London University a sum of £10,670—a little more than we have voted for the Queen's University in Ireland; but if we look to the elder Universities we there see a remarkable contrast. I need not say, Sir, that Trinity College has all the powers and bears all the expenses of a University. Its income, therefore, is not to be treated as that of a College. The University of Oxford has, in its separate capacity as a University, an endowment producing £29,000 a-year; the external income of its Colleges and Halls derived from land amounts to £307,000 a-year—making the total income of the University of Oxford £336,000. The external income of Cambridge University amounts to £13,000; that of its Colleges and Halls to £264,000—making
    1868
    the total income of Cambridge University £277,000. The united income of the two Universities derived from endowments amounts to £613,000 a-year. That is in contrast with the income of £43,000 enjoyed by the University of Dublin, which, of late years has been supplemented by £39,000 a-year voted to the Queen's Colleges. It is right to observe that as a means of making provision for their Fellows, Oxford University has benefices in the gift, either of the University or its Colleges, the annual income of which is £137,000, and Cambridge has benefices with an annual income of £135,000. I might, Sir, be tempted to stop and ask what Trinity College did for many generations on an endowment that never amounted in any year to £40,000, and how it maintained an honourable competition of which no Irishman need feel ashamed with the two great English Universities endowed with more than £600,000 a-year? But I would use the contrast, as supplying me with an unanswerable argument in favour of the proposal which this Bill makes—that out of a fund which, in fact, represents the endowments provided by our ancestors in ancient times—I mean the surplus of the property of the Disestablished Church—provision should be made for the absolute necessities of Irish University education. This is the same class of property from which the endowments of the English Universities are derived. Now let me ask the attention of the House to the state of things that actually exists in Ireland. From the benefits of University institutions the great mass of the people are practically excluded; and I may observe, in passing, that in addition to these University endowments there are in Ireland some small endowments for intermediate schools; but including these in the observation that I make, there is not in the whole of Ireland, from one end of it to another, a single endowed educational institution in accordance with the convictions and religious belief of the Irish people. I cannot, perhaps, express this better than by quoting the words in which it was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech delivered by him at Southport on the 19th December, 1873—

    1869
    "At the present moment no University degree can be granted in Ireland, except in Trinity College, Dublin, where the system of the Established Church is taught, and in the Queen's Colleges and various places where no system of religion is taught at all as a part of the system of education; and that if there be Roman Catholics—and there are numbers of them—who hold in Ireland the very same opinion that we hold in England—namely, to prefer having their children trained in establishments where their own religion is taught—these children are deprived from the privilege of a University degree, and that degree by a civil privilege, it comes to this—that there are still in Ireland civil disabilities on account of religious opinion. Now, we would not bear that ourselves."
    Now, Sir, when I have said that there is not an educational institution in Ireland receiving a State endowment which is in accordance with the religious convictions and belief of the Irish people, I have stated a national grievance of no ordinary kind. You have endowed institutions founded on principles adverse to those convictions and that belief. You have institutions like your endowed schools, and, like Trinity College, essentially Protestant in their character. You have institutions like the Queen's Colleges, representing a form of teaching still more repulsive to the feelings of the Irish people—I mean a form that altogether excludes religious teaching—but a single institution in harmony with the feelings of those who constitute the majority of the people you have not. I do not know that I ought to take up the time of the House in adducing statistical proofs; but the result is that a very small proportion of Roman Catholics avail themselves of University education in Ireland. I have no wish to enter into any controversy as to the Queen's Colleges; but everyone knows that they have failed in attracting to them Roman Catholic students. I will take the total number attending lectures in the three Queen's Colleges in the sessions of 1875 and 1876 as I find them in the last Reports of those Colleges. In October, 1876, Galway had 156 students, of whom 82 were Roman Catholics; Cork had 250, of whom 131 were Roman Catholics; and Belfast 404, of whom 11 were Roman Catholics—making in all 224 Roman Catholics attending in that year's lectures, out of those three Colleges. At the end of 1874 I find a statement contained in the Report of the President of the Belfast College, that the
    1870
    total number attending lectures was 781, of whom 217 were Roman Catholics. But, Sir, I quite agree with a remark which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich in 1873, that the large proportion of the students attending the lectures at the Queen's Colleges are not attending them for the purpose of University education in its proper sense, but to acquire technical or professional knowledge. The schools of Medicine, of Engineering, and of Law do not represent persons who come for the purpose of University training. It is only the Faculty of Arts that we ought to consider in estimating the number of persons really coming for University education. In Belfast, at the end of 1876, there were only 119 in the Faculty of Arts; in Cork, 51; and in Galway, 53—about one-third of the entire number of students matriculated in the Faculty of Arts. Now, if we were to take the same proportion of Roman Catholics as are matriculating in the Faculty of Arts, the number of Roman Catholics really seeking University education would be about 70. Of all the students in the Colleges, you would only have 70 really students belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. And I believe this is the real proportion of Roman Catholic students in the Queen's Colleges. To this, however, we must add the Roman Catholics who are receiving their education in the University of Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, in his speech in this House in 1873, estimated the number of these at 100. It is, of course, easy to attain the exact number; but I should be disposed to fix them at 70. But even taking them at 100, we have of the whole Roman Catholic population of Ireland but 170 availing themselves of University education—a number so disproportioned to the Roman Catholic population as to prove in itself that our University institutions are vitally defective. But, Sir, this is not a religious, but a national grievance. If we add to the 223 students in Arts in the Queen's University all that have matriculated in Dublin, we have not altogether more than 1,100 persons in Ireland seeking for University education. This is a number which shows that a large proportion of the people of Ireland do not receive the benefits of I a University education who might be

    1871
    expected to do so. Before I pass away from this allusion to Trinity College, let me say that nothing has been done to make Trinity College more suited to Roman Catholics by the change which was made by the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). It is still essentially a Protestant institution. There is within its walls a College chapel in which Divine worship is conducted according to the rites of the Protestant Church. There is no building in which it is celebrated according to the Roman Catholic form. There are 70 Scholarships in Trinity College, and since the passing of that Bill three only of those Scholarships have been obtained by Roman Catholics. If, indeed, any of those things which would establish religious equality were to happen—if there were Roman Catholic Fellows equal in number to the Protestant—if Mass were celebrated in a building set apart for that purpose; if a Roman Catholic ecclesiastic or even a Roman Catholic layman were nominated Provost, I am quite sure that the effect would be that Protestants would leave Trinity College, and it would become utterly unsuited for the purposes of a Protestant University education. But none of these things have happened, and none of them will happen in the present generation, and while the youngest of us is alive Trinity College will continue a Protestant institution. I think I have now gone far enough to show that if you want to supply the opportunities of University education to the whole Irish people, some new element must be introduced. But this is a social as well as a religious and national grievance. If there be anything in University education, it must give the man who receives it some advantages in social life. It was only when I began to study the question and to collect information on the subject, that I perfectly understood the unfair advantage which our present educational arrangements give to the Protestant. In every department of life he has an advantage. He has the means of education supplied by the State which are not open to the Roman Catholic. This constitutes a religious ascendancy of the very worst kind, because it rests upon condemning a large proportion of the people to inferiority of education. Every Protestant in Ireland would perceive the unfairness of that
    1872
    ascendancy, and would wish to give to the Roman Catholics the advantages he himself possessed. I now come to the question itself, and if the House agrees with me that 150 Roman Catholics are not a fair proportion to receive a University education, it remains only to remedy the evil. That can be done in two ways—either by founding a separate Roman Catholic University, or by establishing a second College in the Dublin University, suited to meet the wants and the wishes of the Catholic people. I myself, Sir, am an advocate for the second College. A long time must elapse before any new University, however well and wisely conducted, could acquire for its degrees prestige which belongs to those of the elder University. That University has many great traditions and many proud recollections. The names of Grattan, of Burke, of Curran, and most of the men whose names have become household words in Irish history are connected with it. I wish to make our Roman Catholic countrymen sharers in all these traditions—traditions which we have acquired as a national University, and in which, therefore, they have a right to share. But, in introducing this Bill in this shape, permit me to re-state the position which I occupy. I brought in this Bill on my own responsibility—a responsibility shared only with the Friends who allowed me to associate their names with mine in introducing it. I brought it in as a Member of this House, as a Member of the Senate of Dublin University. I wished for a second College for the sake of the University itself—for the sake of the Protestants of Ireland—for the sake of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. I preferred this to the establishment of a separate University. I think the great principles on which such a Bill ought to be founded are these—to give the Roman Catholics a College in which they receive education according to their convictions, and it is vain to 'disguise from ourselves that this involves the giving to the Roman Catholic Bishops as much control as the Catholic people of Ireland believe that religion requires they should have. Another principle would be to place Roman Catholics practically on an equality with Protestants in endowments, and, as far as possible, in the prestige that should belong to the degrees they would obtain. But

    1873
    there are other objects also to be kept in view. We are not to impair the efficiency of Trinity College as an institution for the education of Protestants. We are not to lower the standard of University education; nor are we to place University education under the Government control, which has been fatal to every University system over which it has thrown its withering shadow. Now let me, in the first place, advert to the declaration of the Roman Catholic Prelates to which I have already referred. They each stated what they considered requisite for the higher education of the country. I am quoting from a Pastoral which they all signed in 1871—
    "As regards higher education (we repeat the words of the resolutions adopted by the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland in August, 1869), since the Protestants of this country have had a Protestant University, with rich endowments, for 300 years, and have so still, the Catholic people of Ireland equally have a right to a Catholic University. But should Her Majesty's Government be unwilling to increase the number of Universities in this country, religious equality cannot be realized unless the degrees, endowments, and other privileges enjoyed by our fellow-subjects of a different religion be placed within reach of Catholics on terms of perfect equality. The injustice of denying to us a participation in those advantages, except at the cost of principle and conscience, is aggravated by the consideration that whilst we contribute our share to the public funds for the support of educational institutions from which conscience warns us away, we have, moreover, to tax ourselves for the education of our children in our own Colleges and Universities. Should it please Her Majesty's Government, therefore, to remove the many grievances to which Catholics are subjected by existing University arrangements, and to establish one national University in this Kingdom for examining candidates and conferring degrees, the Catholic people of Ireland are entitled in justice to demand that in such University or annexed to it, they shall have one or more Colleges conducted upon purely Catholic principles, and at the same time fully participating in the privileges enjoyed by other Colleges of whatsoever denomination or character; that the University honours and emoluments be accessible to Catholics equally with their Protestant fellow-subjects; that the examinations and all other details of University arrangement be free from every influence hostile to the religious sentiments of Catholics, and that with this view the Catholic element be adequately represented upon the Senate or other supreme University Body of persons enjoying the confidence of the Catholic Bishops, priests, and people of Ireland."
    I cannot think that those requisitions were unreasonable, and they were fol-
    1874
    lowed up by the passage I have already quoted, in which the Prelates stated their belief that they would all be satisfied by the establishment of a second College in the University of Dublin. Now, Sir, we have in the City of Dublin an institution called the Catholic Union. It has been several years in existence. The Commissioners of Science and Art reported, two or three years ago, that £200,000 had been subscribed by the Catholic people in support of the institution. No doubt, a large proportion of this has been expended in the annual support of the institution, but a portion still remains available in the buildings and other property of the institution. That institution enjoys the goodwill and confidence of the Irish Catholic people. It is not easy to convey to Members of this Assembly the exact position which it occupies in Ireland. I can only say that it has among its Professors men of the highest eminence in several of the walks of science. It has won the respect of all classes, including the leading men of Trinity College, and many interchanges of civility attest the readiness on the part of Trinity College to acknowledge it among the new institutions of the country. It is too common to impute to Roman Catholic education a tendency to restrain the freedom of thought. The Catholic Union has an historical and literary society, in which topics—as in the kindred institutions of other Universities—are freely discussed. It has been frequently my lot to be present at the opening meetings of the society, where the President delivered an inaugural address; and I believe there is no one who has been present on those occasions who would not bear me out in saying that nowhere has there been displayed more perfect freedom and liberality of thought and reasoning than in the addresses to which we have had the good fortune to listen; and I must add, Sir, that among the men educated at Catholic Universities I have found as true liberality of thought, as entire an absence of sectarianism and bigotry, and a tone of thought as free and enlarged as I have met with among any class with whom I am acquainted. I believe it would be the extreme of folly that could induce us to disregard the claims of this institution, to be accepted as a challenge representing Catholic thought and intellect in the University of Dublin. I

    1875
    therefore, Sir, propose in this Bill to offer to the Chiefs in that institution the option of a Charter and incorporation as a second College in the University of Dublin. I do not propose to affiliate any other seminary or institution with the University. I propose that Trinity College and this Catholic College should at present constitute the sole members of the University, and while the Bill provides for new Colleges that may be founded in future times, it enacts that all those Colleges should be situated within a short distance of the centre of Dublin. I have, Sir, no wish to discuss the Bill which was introduced in 1873 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. I am quite ready to do justice to the liberality of sentiment which marked the framing of the Bill. I believe that it was dictated by a sincere desire to do justice to the Irish people in this vital matter of University education, and I do not stop now to inquire into the causes of its failure. But, Sir, I cannot help remarking that I believe the attempt to affiliate to the University in Dublin a number of seminaries in the country was one of the causes of the failure, because it was felt by every Irishman that this must have the effect of lowering the standard of University education. That I am not speaking this without reason I think I can satisfy the House. The opinion of the Catholic laity was against that scheme. I hope the House will pardon me if I refer to an address which was presented to myself by a large number of the Professors and students and ex-students of the Catholic University. In that address they pointed out the preference which they give to the Bill I have framed, because it did not lower the standard of University education in Ireland. Speaking of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) Bill, they say that it proposed to associate with Trinity College, under the Dublin University, not a great institution, which might act as an intellectual centre for the Catholics of Ireland, and which might afford them some hope of recovering the reputation which Catholic Ireland once possessed for learning—instead of giving a centre of Catholic thought, it would have tacked on to the University of Dublin a number of schools and seminaries scattered throughout the country, amongst which com-
    1876
    pany the Catholic University was admitted without one penny of endowment, without any one special advantage, without any one distinguishing characteristic which could enable it, as the heart of the Irish Catholic educational system, to diffuse life and vigour throughout the members of that system. And they added, that had that Bill passed a central examining Board—a weak resemblance of the London University—the Catholics of Ireland might thenceforth have had education; but University education, in the true and high sense of the term, they never could have hoped for. And they contrast with this the Bill which I have introduced, by saying that my proposal is not to drag the Catholic University and a great College into an ill-assorted union with a number of smaller seminaries scattered throughout the country—a union which might be able to degrade the College to the level of a seminary, but which never could elevate a seminary into the standard of a College. I have ventured to quote these sentences as indicating what I believe to be the general opinion of the educated Catholic laity. They desire that the standard of University education should be maintained, and that whatever be the Collegiate or University institution that would give them justice in the matter of higher education, it should, in its requirements, be upon a level with the old established Universities of the Kingdom. As to the constitution and government of the two Colleges, the Catholic University is at present under the control of 12 of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland. I propose to preserve that body, under the title of Committee of Founders, and almost all the powers which they exercise. There are to be associated with them 12 laymen. The first 12 are to be named in the Bill; and in future, vacancies among those laymen are to be filled up alternately by an election by the Graduates of the College and of the Senate, as the body constituted of the 12 Bishops and 12 laymen is to be termed. This addition of laymen to the Council of Bishops has been suggested by the Prelates who met myself and my Friends in the conference which I have already mentioned. In addition to these there is to be a Collegiate Council, consisting of 12, four to be nominated by the Senate, four by the

    1877
    Professors of Dublin University, and four by the Graduates. The Graduates are to assemble in a separate body, to be called the Congregation of Graduates. These three bodies—the Senate, composed as I have described, the Collegiate Council, and the Congregation of Graduates—constitute the Governing Bodies of the Catholic University. The Professors, who are to hold their office for life, or during good behaviour, are to be elected in this way—three names are to be recommended by the Collegiate Council, of whom the Senate is to choose one. The power of making ordinances on certain subjects connected with the discipline and arrangements of the College is entrusted to the Senate; other matters are to be regulated by the Collegiate Council; but no change is to be made in any regulation sanctioned by the Act without the assent of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council of Ireland. Those are the outlines of the mode in which the new Catholic College is to be constituted. It is a subject which I think ought to be left greatly to the Roman Catholic people themselves. I believe that the mode in which the government of the College is arranged will be found such as will meet with their approbation. I do not, however, wish to rest this Bill either on this point or any other point upon a perfect agreement on its details. As to Trinity College, the management is still left in the hands of the Protestant Senior Fellows of the Academic Council, elected in the same manner as at present, and of a Congregation of Graduates substituted for Convocation. As, of course, in future the Graduates of the other College will become members of the Convocation, a Congregation of the Graduates of the College is substituted for Convocation. In the powers that are to be exercised over the arrangement of the College itself the University of Dublin remains as at present, with a Vice Chancellor elected by Convocation, and with the addition of an Academic or University Council—seven to be selected by the Governing Body of each College, two more by the Graduates of Trinity College, and two by those of the new College. These, with the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor, constitute the Academic Council; and to the Council is largely entrusted the ordinary management of University examinations and other mat-
    1878
    ters relating to the daily life, I may say, of the University. Statutes of the University can only be made with the assent of the Academic Council and of Convocation, and no statute can be made unless it has obtained the assent both of the Protestant Senior Fellows of Trinity College and of the Senate of the Catholic College. Now, as to the mode of obtaining degrees. Degrees are to be conferred, as at present, by the Convocation of the University. The degree of B.A. is to be obtained by residence in either of the Colleges, and attending lectures, and complying with such other regulations as each College may make. Each candidate must go through two University examinations, one at the end of two years, and the other when he offers himself as candidate for his degree. These University examinations are to be conducted by a Board of Examiners appointed by the Academic Council, and in the Bill itself the course to be used at these examinations is prescribed. It may seem an unusual thing to include in the Bill the University course examination which shall qualify a person for a degree; but there are reasons which make it expedient to do so when you are combining two different Colleges; and, perhaps, it will surprise some of you to be told that in the course there is to be found provision for examination both in history and moral philosophy. As to the qualification of the common degrees, I will not detain the House by pointing out the subjects which by the Bill are made necessary for passing the University examinations, and also prescribed as subjects to be taught in the Colleges; but I venture to say that if anyone will take the trouble of looking over the Schedule to the Bill he will admit that the course of study prescribed for the students is such as in no degree to lower the standard of University education in Ireland, and is in liberality and completeness equal to the requirements of any University in the United Kingdom. The Bill leaves to the University of Dublin all the powers it now possesses of granting degrees, with the exception of Degrees in Divinity, but it authorizes each College to grant a diploma conferring the title of D.D.—a diploma, however, which confers no University right. I ought to have mentioned that there is a provision that the Council of Bishops may appoint in the Catholic College

    1879
    Professors of Divinity; but there is also a provision that none of the revenues conferred upon the College by the Act shall be applied to payment of such Professors, and to prevent that same thing being done indirectly there is a provision that no theological Professor shall hold any other office or Professorship in the College. A provision has been introduced this year into the Bill that the Vice Chancellor, instead of being appointed at the absolute discretion of the Chancellor, shall be selected from three names to be furnished to him alternately by each College, the Vice Chancellorship to be held for a period of three years. With respect, however, to the obtaining of degrees, I ask the particular attention of the House to a provision to which I attach the greatest value. The House will permit me fully to explain this. It always has been the habit of the University of Dublin to allow persons to obtain admission into the University of Dublin—to allow persons to obtain degrees by attending certain examinations in the year, without residence, and without attending lectures. I propose to continue this. Recently, students have been admitted into the English Universities without entering any College; and I propose to adopt this plan in the Irish University, so that any student who does not desire to enter either of the Colleges may matriculate as a member of the University, without residence or attendance on lectures at either College. By these means any person who acquires the requisite knowledge may obtain his degree, receiving his education in any place he thinks fit, or educating himself, the only requisite being that he will prove that he is following the University course by regular attendance at examinations; and that in addition to this he shall be able to pass two University examinations to which persons receiving their education in the two Colleges are subjected. This is obviously but the introduction of a new element of competition in the two Colleges; and, unless the education afforded by the two Colleges is such as to make it worth the while of the student to undergo the expense and inconvenience of Collegiate residence, it is obvious that many, at all events, will avail themselves of the privilege of dispensing with it, and also persons who
    1880
    from any motive may have an objection to enter either of the Colleges will find the means of obtaining a degree, and also admission to compete for all the emoluments and honours of the University without joining either College. Consequences will, no doubt, follow from this upon which I do not wish at present to detain the House, and it is possible that in a few years Halls may be founded in Dublin in which students belonging to some particular denominations may find a home in the City of Dublin, and take their degree in the University; and I may add that there is a provision in the Bill that any student who shall matriculate in the University may avail himself at a small charge of the lectures given in any College. Having thus briefly sketched the constitution of the Colleges and of the University, I will now ask the attention of the House to the endowments which I propose for them. Trinity College is already endowed, as I have stated, with £43,000 a-year. In the Bill of 1873 it was proposed that Trinity College should contribute in money a sum of £12,000 a-year to maintain the University. I do not purpose to impose any pecuniary contribution upon Trinity College; but I do purpose that that Body shall contribute to the University something that will be much more valuable than money. There are now 70 Scholarships in Trinity College, which, with rooms and free commons and the small stipend, are worth about £50 a-year each. These, of course, can now only be obtained by students in Trinity College. They are sought after with an eagerness disproportionate to their money value. The Scholarship Roll contains the names of many Irishmen, from Edmund Burke downwards, who have been illustrious in former times. The Bill proposes that these Scholarships shall be thrown open to all students of the University. If one is obtained by a student who is not a member of Trinity College, he has the chance either of becoming a member of the College, or of receiving from the College an annual sum equivalent to the worth of the Scholarship. It will be to him a grant of £50 a-year for five years during which the Scholarship can be held, and it is proposed that it shall carry with it the privilege of voting for the Representatives of the University—a privilege reserved in the Reform Bill,

    1881
    even for Undergraduate scholars, and which attaches a peculiar value to the obtaining of the honour. Again, the number of Fellows in Trinity College is now excessive. I propose that 10 of these Fellowships shall be converted into University Fellowships, and that each of these 10 Fellows shall receive from Trinity College the same stipend as would be paid to him if he were elected a Fellow of the College. That stipend is a very small one, and will, of course, not include any of the fees for tuitions which he may have received as a Fellow of College. In addition to this stipend, each of the 10 Fellows is entitled to receive from the University revenues as much as will increase the total income to £200 a-year. There are also Professorships which are virtually Universityships, although the salaries of the Professors are paid out of the revenues of Trinity College. I propose that they shall still be so paid, but that their nomination shall rest with the University Professors. The Professorships with which I propose so to deal are the Royal Professorship of Astronomy, with a salary of £700 a-year, independent of a residence in the University and several acres of land; the Regius Professor of Law, who has a salary of £500 a-year; the Regius Professor of Physic and Surgery; and last, but not least, of Music. These five Professorships will continue on the College revenues—a charge of more than £2,000 a-year on the transfer of the Fellowships. There is another annual contribution of £1,000 a-year, and the surrender of the 70 Foundation Scholarships, taking each of them at £60 a-year, will be a money contribution of £4,200 a-year, imposing on the revenues of Trinity College an annual charge of £8,000. In addition to this there are 14 studentships, of £100 a-year each, recently founded by the Board. I propose that these shall be open to all students of the University, making a further contribution of about £1,000 a-year. So that in all, Trinity College will bestow upon the University places maintained out of its own revenues of the value of about £9,000 a-year. The Bill of 1873 required them to contribute in money an annual sum of £12,000, which I believe will not have been of the same value to the University as the places which under this Bill they will bestow. In addition,
    1882
    there are a number of small prizes and medals which I propose to throw open to all students in the University. They are small in amount, but of great value in associating the University in its remodelled form with the traditions of the past, because thus the Bill gives to the University an interest in the Library, including a magnificent collection of ancient Irish manuscripts, all of which are now the exclusive property of Trinity College. To provide for endowment of the University as distinguished from either of the Colleges, the Bill proposes that there shall be 15 University Fellowships, held for life, and endowed each with £100 a-year; and the Bill also provides that there shall be given away every year two exhibitions of £100 a-year, tenable for five years. There are also exhibitions attached to some of the endowed schools which I propose to throw open for competition among all the students of the University, instead of their being limited, as they are, to pupils from those schools. I propose, therefore, that there shall be given away the following prizes and Fellowships, open to all its graduates:—25 Fellowships, worth £200 a-year, and 10 exhibitions, worth £100 a-year; to Undergraduates—70 Scholarships, worth £60, and 30 exhibitions varying from £50 to £20 a-year. The Undergraduate Scholarships and Exhibitions will be provided out of funds independent of the University, and half of the expense of 10 Fellowships will be borne by Trinity College. So that the charge upon the University will be 15 Fellowships at £200 a-year each, half of the Fellowships at £100 a-year each, and 10 Exhibitions at £100 a-year each. All these together will make an annual charge on the University revenues of £5,000; but, in addition to these, I propose to place at the disposal of the University authorities 50 Exhibitions of £20 a-year each, tenable for three years, to be given to young men who may be desirous of fitting themselves for the University, and who may require pecuniary assistance in their studies. This will add a charge of £3,000, making the total charge £8,000, to be expended in the manner I have mentioned. I do not think anyone will say that I ask too much for these purposes. In proposing that the Irish Church Commissioners shall provide out of their surplus a sum of £300,000, bear-

    1883
    ing interest at the rate of 4 per cent, if it continues to produce the same amount of income after providing for these Fellowships and prizes and the pensions in aid of poor students, the University will have a sum of £4,000 a-year at its disposal for all other purposes under certain restrictions which I need not now particularize. I propose to leave this sum at the disposal of the Academic Council, with, however, a provision that none of it shall be applied in any way except providing for the ordinary expenditure of the University, except by a vote in which two-thirds of the Council concur. For the endowment of the new College I propose that as soon as the Charter is accepted, the sum of £30,000 shall be handed over to the College to provide suitable buildings. It is desirable that the Irish people shall manifest their continued interest in the maintenance of a Catholic University institution, and I therefore propose that before any other sum is handed over, the trustees of the Roman Catholic College shall be able to place at the disposal of its authorities a sum of £30,000. The House will remember that nearly £200,000 has been already subscribed. The £30,000 will, therefore, make up £220,000 supplied by the contributions of the Roman Catholic people. Upon this being done, the Bill proposes that double the sum shall be handed over out of the Church surplus to form a permanent endowment of the new Roman Catholic College. That will make the charge on the Church surplus in all amount to £800,000—namely, £30,000 for buildings, £440,000 for endowment of the new Roman Catholic College, and £300,000 in endowment of the University, together with a grant of £30,000 for University buildings. I have now stated to the House the outline of the Bill, omit-; ting, of course, minute details which would have wearied the House without enabling them better to understand the proposal. The main principle of the proposal is the establishment of a second College in the University of Dublin, making the second College of such a character as to provide education for the Roman Catholic people in accordance with their convictions and their faith, and also to offer to every Irishman the power of obtaining a degree without being obliged to submit himself to any peculiar instruction. The latter point is
    1884
    secured by the provision which I have pointed out of admitting persons to degrees who matriculate in the University without entering either College. Both Colleges I make, as far as possible, independent and self-governing. I give to each of them the equal share in the management of the University; but leave to each College the power of making such regulations as the College itself may think expedient to advance within its own walls the interests of science or of education, and to leave them perfectly free. In this I propose that the Act prohibiting the requirement of the religious qualifications shall no longer apply to the Colleges, although it is retained in full force as to the University. As to the regulations of the Catholic College, that is a matter which we ought to leave almost entirely to the Roman Catholic people themselves. As to the relations which unite the two Colleges, they are of course a matter open to consideration, and upon which it may be found possible, and even advantageous, to modify some of the proposals I have made. All I ask the House now to do in reading the Bill a second time is to affirm the principle of the establishment of a Roman Catholic College in the University of Dublin, without pledging itself to any of the particular details by which the measure is proposed to be carried out. The proposal of the Roman Catholic College is not new. Up to the year 1793 Roman Catholics we're not admissible into Trinity College, Dublin. They were excluded, first, by the statutes of the College; and, secondly, by an Act of Parliament, which prohibited, them from taking degrees. In that year the statutes of the College were modified by Royal authority, so as to dispense in the case of Roman Catholics with any observances which would interfere with their religion; and in the same year the Irish Parliament repealed the Act which excluded them from degrees. I will ask the House to remember that this was done by the exclusively Protestant Parliament of Ireland, long before Dissenters of any kind were admitted to degrees in either of the English Universities, or even to matriculate at Oxford. But the Irish Parliament went further, and they enacted that a second College might be instituted in which Roman Catholics could hold Fellowships, provided that it was not exclusively for

    1885
    Roman Catholics, and that it was a member of the University of Dublin. I have not the slightest doubt that, had the Irish Parliament continued its existence this liberal measure would have been carried out, and a second College in such a form as would then have satisfied the Roman Catholics would have been endowed out of the revenues of Ireland, and it is strange that now, after the lapse of 84 years, I have still to ask of the British Parliament to carry out the act of justice and liberality which the Protestant Parliament of Ireland had contemplated. In 1865 the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) revived the question, and a correspondence ensued between Sir George Grey and the Roman Catholic Bishops, which came to nothing. In 1868, Lord Mayo entered into negotiations with the Roman Catholic Prelates on the subject of chartering a Roman Catholic University, but it ended in no result. In 1867, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said that the evil arising out of the existing system of Irish education was so great that some way or another must be found for putting an end to it; two generations of youths have passed into the world during the interval, and all this time the British Parliament have been hesitating to deal with the matter. Two generations have gone into the battle of life bereft of the advantages of Catholic University education, to which they were entitled. Is it not time for Parliament to settle the matter? A spirit of conciliation has been manifested by the Irish Catholic Prelates and clergy on the subject, as I have shown by the Pastorals I have quoted. Will not Parliament meet them in the same spirit of conciliation? I appeal to them to do so, and to banish from their minds the fatal defect which has been the blemish of so many measures for Ireland—that thought, which they may endeavour to conceal even from themselves, but which nevertheless prevails—that they may use their legislative measures to alter the religious convictions of the Irish people. I assure the House that if these religious convictions are to be altered, it will not be by a University Bill. I appeal to all parties in the House to do justice in this question. I appeal to those who are pledged to support religious education, and I tell them that
    1886
    they cannot have it in Ireland, unless they give it alike to Protestant and Catholic. They have appealed to Irish Members to support them with regard to religious education in England. Let them give it to Ireland also, and Irish Members will support them. I will appeal also to another Party in the House—to a Party which has laid Ireland under great obligations in other matters—the party which is in favour of secular education. I appeal to them, although I know their views and mine are not alike on that one question, because we have worked together in many others. My views are in favour of religious education, and I believe that the man who is trained only in intellectual qualities, and whose moral faculties are left untrained, is half educated. Let me appeal to those who stand by us on almost every Irish question, and for their support all Ireland is grateful. I appeal to them on their own principles, and I ask them who is to be the judge in this matter? Is it not the father of a child who is to judge whether he should send his child to a religious school or to one from which that element is excluded? Is it not right to give him the right to judge? As long as they continue to be in favour of religious education, I ask them to allow Catholics to have their own opinion and the right to educate their own children in their own faith. I thank the House for having listened to me so long. This is the question of all other Irish questions upon which I feel deeply and earnestly. I entreat all parties in this House not to allow any exasperation which they may entertain against any individual Irishman to interfere with their desire to do justice to a nation. I believe a great grievance is committed upon our Catholic countrymen while the House denies them the right to education which was given me in my young days and in my University days; and I ask them in the name of justice to throw away every other consideration and to extend to the people of Ireland this great blessing—a blessing which is above all others that they can bestow—of an education that will raise them and elevate them in the ranks of nations.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Butt.)
    MR. PLUNKETmoved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. It was obvious, from the hon. and learned Member's speech, that he could hardly mean seriously to press this particular measure upon the House, and that he had used it rather as an opportunity for raising a discussion upon the general question. He had felt, and he believed the House must have felt sympathy for the hon. and learned Member in the difficulties of his task, and admiration for the extraordinary skill of advocacy he had shown. Anyone might have felt that, even though they had not read the Bill; but he (Mr. Plunket), having carefully studied it must confess his surprise at the elaborate ingenuity with which, both in the preparation of the measure—containing some 122 clauses—and also in the speech by which its author had introduced it that day to the House, he had endeavoured to reconcile propositions which were, in principle and practice, irreconcilable. He (Mr. Plunket) must proceed to dispel this illusion, and very briefly to point out only a few of the startling and impossible proposals contained in the Bill. He had given Notice of opposition to the Bill with the sanction of the Governing Body of the University of which he had the honour to be one of the Representatives. If the Bill had only professed to charter and endow a wholly separate College or University, whatever he might as an individual Member of the House have thought of such a proposal, he would, on behalf of the existing University, have had comparatively little right to interfere. But this Bill directly invaded Trinity College, and sought to reverse its policy and revolutionize its system, and if it became law, must impair seriously its efficiency, and might ultimately destroy the ancient University of Dublin. Such was the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend; but in his speech he had, in a very self-sacrificing manner, thrown over the result of his own labour and spoken only generally upon the question at large. What did his hon. and learned Friend propose to do? He proposed the granting of a Charter to the new College, and that the Charter should be given to those who were to be called the Committee of Founders, who were now in possession of considerable funds. [Mr. BUTT dissented.] Well, but the ques-
    1888
    tion as to the authority and influence of the Committee of Founders in the new Corporation gave rise to a point of especial difficulty. That Committee was to consist of the Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland. To these Prelates was to be confided the control and management of such University education as they thought fit for their flocks. Such was the College that was to be affiliated, and on equal terms, with Trinity College; such was the Committee of Founders—Prelates of whom he desired to speak with respect, but who were to have—would the House believe it?—the power of vetoing any proposal that might be made as to the course of studies in the future University of Dublin! The proposed new College might be the best in the world from his hon. and learned Friend's point of view; but it was not one which could be introduced into the University of Dublin to work side by side with old Trinity College. His hon. and learned Friend had made changes in his Bill of last year; but as far as the popular element was concerned it lost considerably by the change. It was clear that the Committee of Founders the 12 Prelates of whom he had spoken—would, if not at the outset, certainly eventually, have the control of everything connected with the education to be conferred by the University. True it was that to the Senate which this Bill proposed to create would be entrusted an overwhelming influence in every department of the new institution. But of whom was this Senate to be composed?—of 24 persons; and of these 24, 12 were permanently and ex-officio to be the Committee of Founders, whilst the other 12—the other half—should have been nominated in a Schedule which was still a blank Schedule to this Bill! Whoever they turned out to be, on the occurrence of the first vacancy in their number, the new member was to be chosen by the Congregation of Graduates; but on the occurrence of the second and every alternate vacancy, the election was to be made by the Senate—that was to say, by the 23 members of the Senate whose seats were not vacant—in other words, by the 12 ecclesiastical ex-officio members, as against 11 of the other half of the body. Thus in the course of a few years the Committee of Founders would constitute a permanent majority of about

    1889
    three-fourths of the Senate, and, in fact, absorb all the influence and functions of the Senate. The body, therefore, which was to control the new College was to be mainly composed of, or to be nominated by, the Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland. Now, what would be the effect of introducing the new College into the University of Dublin under the conditions proposed by his hon. and learned Friend? It was not an ordinary case of a newly founded College being affiliated with Oxford or Cambridge. The proposal was to take a small College and connect it with a great one, on terms of complete equality, in the government of the University and all its studies. He did not desire to speak of the small College at all disrespectfully; he knew that amongst its Professors were men of eminence, and that it had an excellent school of medicine connected with it. He did not, therefore, speak in the least degree disparagingly of it, but he did say that it was simply ridiculous to compare it with Trinity College. How could the one be associated with the other on terms of equality? The Roman Catholic Prelates would consider, in the first place, what, in their opinion, was necessary for the protection of the faith and morals of their flocks, and by that rule they would direct the course of education. On the other hand, the University of Dublin did not shrink from investigation in any department of Science. Which section, then, was to have the control? It was not a question of introducing a non-sectarian College—a proposal which might be resisted on the ground of expediency—but here was a question of principle, and one which, in his opinion, involved a strict limitation of the higher education of the youth of Ireland. There was no probability that the new University Council would be able to agree about the Fellowships to be created, the course of studies to be pursued, and the various other subjects which they would be immediately called upon to discuss. But, apart from that consideration, the control which the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church were to be allowed to exercise over the course of studies in the University was, in his opinion, sufficient to condemn the Bill. Two theories of education had prevailed
    1890
    in Ireland during the last quarter of a century. One was in favour of mixed education, and the other in favour of sectarian education. These two principles were necessarily opposed to each other, and if brought together they must produce estrangements running through all classes. Bather than that they should thus be brought together it would—if the necessity for a new policy should ever be conceded on this question—be far better to establish a separate University. So far as he could see, the necessary effect of the Bill would be to condemn the University to an internecine feud. The authorities of Trinity College would be most eager to do all they could to promote the resort of Catholic students to that institution consistently with the principles on which it was now constituted. He might add, in conclusion, that he believed the figures of the hon. and learned Member, as to the number of Roman Catholic students in Trinity College, were not altogether correct. He was informed the average number from 1872 to 1876 was 122. If the hon. and learned Member went to a division he hoped the House would reject the Bill by a decisive majority.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. David Plunket.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. LOWEsaid, that ever since he took part in the disestablishment of the Irish Church and the disestablishment of Maynooth, he felt strongly that this country lay under a heavy debt to Ireland, which ought to be paid in one way or the other. They had withdrawn from that country a large sum of money, which, although they might object to the way in which it was expended, was nevertheless expended for public purposes. That being so, he felt then a great deal of anxiety, and the same feeling influenced him now as to how they might repair the injury which they then inflicted upon Ireland. The late Government attempted to do so in the University Bill of his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich; but as they had failed in that attempt, it was not likely that the experiment would be renewed. It was, therefore, with much

    1891
    interest he had taken up the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, whose great knowledge, practised ingenuity, and influence in Ireland, might have been expected to solve the question; but he felt bound to confess to a feeling of disappointment. Of the reasons which might be cited for this one appeared to him all-sufficing. The hon. and learned Member seemed to think that, after the disestablishment of the Irish Church and the withdrawal of the Maynooth Grant, the House of Commons, representing the constituencies it did, could be induced to devote a sum of no less than £440,000, and probably a good deal more afterwards, towards the foundation of a strictly Roman Catholic College. The thing was simply impossible, and therefore he would not argue whether it was wise or right or expedient, to accept this Bill. There was no power, he believed, to induce the constituencies of this country to consent to such a denominational grant for any purpose whatever. At all events, if they ever felt disposed to break the rule, it would certainly not be in favour of the Roman Catholic Church. The thing was so manifestly impossible, that but for the hon. and learned Member's evident sincerity, he could hardly have believed the Bill to have been brought forward seriously. The problem before them was how they could do something to promote education in Ireland and give it an impulse, and he thought it would be wrong to grudge a considerable sum for that purpose, provided they could hope to attain the end they had in view. He had always held that the question of education was just as much a question of abstract science and as capable of demonstration as any other branch of political economy. It appeared to him that when people wanted to do something for education, they always began at the wrong end—namely, by endowing teachers. But providing teachers did not at all make it follow that people would go and be taught by them; and, further, so far from the giving of handsome salaries to persons who were to teach, whether they taught well or not, promoting education, that was the way to put education to sleep. Therefore, what should be done was to work on the minds of the parents and of the young who were to be taught by giving them some motive beyond what they had
    1892
    already to induce them to seek education. And when that had been done the problem had been solved, because persons were sure to spring up who would supply the article that was wanted, and supply it well. When the Indian Civil Service and the Civil Service of this country were thrown open to the competition of the best-educated persons who wished to enter them, it was never supposed that by that they were doing anything for education beyond picking out the best young men for the Services. But its effect on education had been very great indeed. That system of competition had re-acted on teaching in the most extraordinary manner, raising up a class of men who, without any endowment whatever, were able to teach what people wanted in the best way. These men were accumulating wealth, and he had heard of a "crammer," as he was called, who was making £11,000 a-year, which was much more than was ever made by a Professor at a University. Where did that come from? Why, the teacher was really endowed by means of the prizes which were given to the pupils—the money passed through the pupil into the hands of the teacher. If therefore they would hold out to the youth of Ireland handsome rewards for proficiency in knowledge of any kind that they chose to prescribe, they might trust to the efficacy of that process for calling into existence a system of education which would have the advantage over all other systems that could be framed of being spontaneous, and not being under the control of the Government, it would be free from all those heart-burnings which made the problem of education in Ireland, as long as it was provided by the State, an absolute impossibility. He suggested whether it would not be better at once to give up these unpractical notions with regard to providing money for the foundation of an educational institution in Ireland or elsewhere. If they were to take a system such as the late Government planned in 1873, minus the common system of teaching, to which it was then found impossible to give effect, would not that be a very considerable improvement on the present state of things? If they had an Examining Board, by which young men could be examined, and if those who passed with distinction could be provided with Scholarships or salaries adequate

    1893
    to enable them to defray the expenses of education wherever they choose to seek it, and if they underwent another examination after a certain period corresponding with that for the Bachelor's degree in our Universities; and those, again, who distinguished themselves received "idle Fellowships," as they were called, for a certain number of years—if that were done with sufficient liberality, and those prizes were open to all Irishmen, without distinction of creed or position, they would have done not all that could be wished, but something valuable towards stimulating education in Ireland without any interference of the Government, and without raising any of those burning questions of religion and of race with which it was impossible to deal; while the wants and wishes of mankind themselves would, in the way he had indicated, call into existence a sort of voluntary University to give the education which people required. He, therefore, threw out for the consideration of Irish Gentlemen the suggestion that pupils who distinguished themselves should receive prizes which would make it worth while for persons who were competent to teach to organize themselves spontaneously in bodies, and then pupils would naturally go where they thought they would be best off. Thus they would obtain the best teachers who could be got, and he had no doubt there would be an emulation among them which would greatly raise the standard of teaching.
    CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he thought the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) would not be altogether unacceptable if the people of Ireland could not get anything else, but they would object to it under present conditions. What the right ton. Gentleman proposed was a Grand National Handicap, in which the Catholics, who were three-fourths of the people of Ireland, were to be enormously handicapped by Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges. For the next three-quarters of a century the Catholic literary talent in Ireland would be nowhere under the scheme sketched by the right hon. Gentleman, because it would allow Secularists and Protestants to retain the advantages which they had in the Queen's Colleges and Trinity College, and then to compete for open prizes with Catholics, who would have no correspond-
    1894
    ing means of being trained for the competition. They could not divide the people of Ireland into two classes—the literary and the land proprietary class—because between them an intermediary line should be drawn, taking in those who went to a University, not knowing whether in the future they would have to work for their own living. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the case of the Indian Civil Service, and that he (Captain Nolan) believed to be the most successful instance of competitive examination. The right hon. Gentleman quoted an instance of a successful teacher making £11,000 a-year, and had said that successful institutions would spring up in Ireland if only sufficient time were given. He (Captain Nolan) did not know the precise teacher alluded to; but about eight or ten years ago he did know a teacher who corresponded to the description given, and he was said to pass one-half of the men for the Indian Civil Service. The special portion of that education did not take long; but he would ask if it would be for the benefit of the moral and religious training of their sons to send them, say for two or three years, to join in learning where no religion was taught? That was the scheme proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, instead of that of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt). They would endeavour to have a College or University for themselves, where the sons of the Roman Catholics could obtain the best teaching in science and literature with a proper amount of care for their morals and religion. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) was that of a man who desired nothing beyond the education of the Protestant youth of Ireland, the Roman Catholics to submit themselves entirely in this respect to Protestant control, and, in short, to give up all claim to free and equal treatment in educational matters. The real difficulty of Catholics was in the teaching at Universities, and one who took an interest in science found that the teaching of geology and other branches of science was supposed to have an important bearing on the fundamental teaching of religion. It was often not merely a question between Catholics and Protestants, but there were teachers of science whose object it was to eliminate all religion from

    1895
    Ireland. That was the real foe they had to contend against in the future. A young man who had got old traditions of religion without having studied its controversial aspects was very likely to be led away by a teacher of geology, or natural history, or chemistry, who could show that these were facts entirely opposed to his religious belief. He did not deny that there were secularists who were moralists in the highest sense and good citizens, and who had brought up children to follow in their footsteps. But it was different in the case of a young man who had been taught as a child the Christian religion; for if he was left in a College without any one to look after his religious life he would probably become immoral, when the reason assigned him in childhood for being moral had been vanquished. The Queen's Colleges in Ireland had been practically rejected because there was a belief that if science was taught without religion they not only destroyed the religion of the young men but their capacity for becoming good citizens. The only useful purpose which the Queen's Colleges served was to teach medical science, in which he believed they had been very successful. Trinity College, Dublin, to a slight extent, was accepted by Catholics. He had no complaint to make as to attempts being made in Trinity College, Dublin, to tamper with the religion of Catholics, but he did complain that so small a number of Catholics went there. It appeared that, in proportion to the population, 80 times as many Protestants as Catholics received a high education in Ireland. Was that because Catholics did not like a University education? Not at all. In the classical schools in Ireland there were about 5,000 Catholic pupils and about 5,000 Protestant pupils. The reason of the great difference between the number of Protestant University students and that of Catholic University students was that there were endowments for Protestants and no endowments for Catholics. Private enter-prize could establish secondary schools for the children of wealthy parents; but there had been no instance, even in England, of private enter-prize being able to provide University education. It was not fair, therefore, to expect that this should be done by the poorest part of the population of the Kingdom, and that was the reason why State assistance
    1896
    was asked for. They did not wish to put any taxation upon the State for the purpose, and the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick did not ask for any such contribution; but there was a sum of £5,000,000 due to Ireland from the old Established Church, which was originally Catholic, and they asked for 10 per cent of that to be devoted to Catholic University education. It would be an advantage to the Empire to have its intellectual wealth increased by the extension of a University education to a large class who up to the present time had not been highly educated. He acknowledged that the Protestants in Ireland were wealthier than the Catholics, but it was absurd to suppose that they were 30 times as rich. The reason of the enormous disparity between the number of the Protestants and that of the Catholics who received a good University education was very simple: the people of Ireland did not wish their children to lose their faith and morals by being in an indifferent and secular University. At present the Catholics declined to avail themselves of the Queen's Colleges because they were purely secular, and for the same reason they could not fully avail themselves of the advantages of Trinity College, because for Roman Catholics it was very nearly secular. The result was that a Catholic had no choice except to go to a thoroughly secular College or to one which for him was very largely secular, or to dispense with the University education altogether. He believed that if we founded a College which would receive the support of the whole Catholic clergy and of the Catholic laity it would draw in a large number of the Catholic population. This Bill would still allow the Protestants to mix with Catholics, and would place them in a fair position with regard to each other. It was said that it was good for the Catholics to mix with the Protestants, but under the existing system only one-thirtieth of the Catholics had an opportunity to mix with the Protestants. The principle of mixed education, therefore, came to this—that to enable a few Catholic students to mix with the Protestants the large proportion of Catholics were excluded from education. He believed that the opposition of the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) proceeded from two reasons—first, his theory of an

    1897
    Examining Board; and, secondly, to a certain soreness which existed on the front Opposition Bench in consequence of their defeat upon the question of Irish University Education in 1873. He (Captain Nolan) and those who thought with him were in favour of perfect freedom of education; but what they contended for was that without endowments it was impossible to have University education. It was only by establishing a Catholic University that a fair share of education could be secured for the Roman Catholics of Ireland. In these circumstances, he should support the second reading of the Bill.
    THE O'DONOGHUE: Sir, in the few words that I have to say I shall go straight to what I conceive to be the point of the subject we are now conducting. The Bill of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the city of Limerick (Mr. Butt) seeks to place the advantages of University education within the reach of the Catholics of Ireland. With this object he proposes that the Queen may be graciously pleased to charter, and the State adequately to endow, a College under the direct control and constant supervision of the authorities of the Catholic Church in Ireland. This is, shortly, the aim and scope of the Bill of my hon. and learned Friend. I imagine that if there is anyone ignorant of the history of the connection of England and Ireland that he would at once ask, in the first place, Is it possible that the Irish Catholics do not enjoy the benefits of University education; and, in the next, that he would inquire however this come to pass. Sir, as a Catholic, I will tell him that it is perfectly true that the Irish Catholics do not enjoy the benefits of University education, because the State persistently refused to recognize an educational body in Ireland, essentially Catholic in its constitution. It was owing to the adoption of this policy that the hostility of the people of Ireland has been excited to the different measures dealing with the subject which have been introduced into Parliament. All those measures have indicated an intention to weaken the influence of the Roman Catholic Clergy over the people; but it will be for the Government and for Parliament to see that the enemy of revelation and of faith is not allowed to enter into the minds of youth under the guise of learning. I believe that the
    1898
    Bill of my hon. and learned Friend proposes to recognize this claim, but it also proposes to give it the official recognition—the legal stamp—the absence of which has hitherto proved a grievous impediment to the progress of University education; and, believing this to be the case, I am able to give the Bill of my hon. and learned Friend my most earnest support, without fear of being contradicted by anyone who has the slightest title to speak. I lay down the proposition that the Catholics cannot conscientiously promote any system of education, and, least of all, any system of University education that is not under the direct control and constant supervision of the ecclesiastical authorities of the Catholic Church. There have been two courses open to the State to follow—one plainly indicated by the spirit of justice and toleration, which, if it had not its source in the true spirit of justice, might have sprung, one would have thought, from habits of long association; the other course pointed out by the spirit of sectarian and national antipathy, of intolerance rendered more intolerable by the arrogant pretence that it was the intolerance of truth, of virtue, of a desire to save those whom it cruelly oppressed. Unfortunately, in due conformity with the perverse disposition of human nature, the latter spirit prevailed and prevails, and the result has been, and is, the denial of University education to the Catholics of Ireland. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) introduced his Bill for the settlement of the Irish University question I saw at once that it did not meet the requirements of the case, inasmuch as it did not recognize the rightful position of the Church in the matter. I saw with disappointment that it was a trimming measure, originating, no doubt, in a desire to do for us as much as it was thought the intolerant spirit of English and Scotch Radicalism would permit. There was a predisposition to consider favourably every proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He had disestablished the Irish Protestant Church. He had practically disendowed it. He had, in a certain extent, disbanded it—that is, he had rendered it difficult to know when or what it was as an aggressive Body. His policy had destroyed it by developing a curious and insatiable mania of internal controversy, which was gradu-

    1899
    ally weaning away that principle of cohesion without which a Church cannot exist, and which is quite incompatible with the assertion of the right of every man to have a religious theory of his own. He had also carried a grand measure of land reform, and in so doing had established principles of incalculable value upon which, still, reforms are to be built up. But in all this I saw no reason why we should accept an inadequate Bill, a bad Bill, a Bill manifestly framed, not upon the first principle of giving us our rights, but of giving us such a modicum of them, and giving us that modicum in such a roundabout way, as would not irritate by wounding the religious susceptibilities of the frequenters of conventicles and tabernacles in England and Scotland. In every relation of life I felt myself aggrieved as a Catholic, as a teacher, and as an Irishman, that strangers should assert a right, and that right should be recognized by a Government professing to govern Ireland justly—that strangers should assert a right to decide the character of the education that I was to give my children at the most critical moment of their lives. I desire that my sons should have the advantage of a University course; but as I desire, before all things, that they shall be Catholics, I wish their University course will be under the control and supervision of the authorities of the Church. The Dissenters of England and Scotland are kind enough not to object to our calling ourselves Catholics; but as the Dissenters of England and Scotland wish to make Catholics that will reject the infallibility of the Pope, that will deny the Divine mission of Bishops, that all think it fair to talk about priest-craft, the Dissenters think the best way to do this is to withhold from us a University system subject to ecclesiastical influences. You are always boasting of being the friends of civil and religious liberty; but while you are talking and bragging in this way, you are inflicting on Catholic Ireland disabilities in that all important matter of education to which she has to submit for conscience sake, and which it taxes her patience to the utmost to endure. Then, Sir, when I saw the right hon. Gentleman lacked either the will or the courage to do us full justice, I gave his Bill every opposition in my power. I opposed it in my
    1900
    place in this House; I opposed it in the Lobby; I opposed it wherever its merits were the subject of discussion; and I flatter myself I materially assisted to throw it out. When some of the Bishops wrote to me to know if the Bill could not be amended, I answered that it could not; that, Sir, at the time I was writing, all that was good in it had been sacrificed to anti-Catholic bigotry. To those who counselled expediency I replied that the days of half measures were gone; that the Representatives of the Catholics were here in full force; that we did not now owe our position to the force of landlords, but to the free votes of the people, who were sound to the core on this question; and that we should go for the full measure of our educational rights—that is, for a system of University education that was thoroughly Catholic. I recommended that we should seek the alliance of all those who would join us in opposing the anti-Christian feeling that sought the overthrow of all ecclesiastical authority—the spread of godless education. Well, Sir, as the Bill of my hon. and learned Friend does propose to give us a thoroughly Catholic system of University education—as it is exclusively framed with a view to meet the wishes of the fathers and mothers of Catholic Ireland, without any reference to the religious vagaries of those whose interference in the matter at all is a most unjustifiable aggression upon our most sacred rights—I come to its support with all the ardour with which I hastened from Ireland to oppose the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. The first Schedule of the Bill contains the names of the trustees to be incorporated as the Committee of Founders of the College. I find the name of the Most Eminent and Most Rev. Paul Cardinal Cullen, D.D., Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin; that of the Most Rev. Daniel M'Gettigan, D.D., Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh; that of the Most Rev. Dr. MacHale, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam; that of the Most Rev. Thomas W. Croke, D.D., Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel. Then follow the names of several other Roman Catholic Bishops. Sir, these names are a sufficient guarantee to us that in this institution religion and learning will go hand-in-hand. There cannot be a doubt

    1901
    about its being essentially ecclesiastical and Catholic in its constitution—"priestly," if you will. I anticipate hearing, by way of a reproach to our intelligence and our manhood, that we were and are to be priest-ridden. I have heard this before, but I never notice it, though I always regard it as a most offensive and gratuitous piece of rudeness. I would no more think of explaining and justifying the sentiments that unite us to our priests than I would think of explaining and justifying the filial sentiment that binds our families together. I say with pride that Ireland is for and with her priests; and it is in order that she may continue to be for and with them that we who are responsible for the legislation of our day are resolved that she shall have a system of University education such as that proposed in the Bill of my hon. and learned Friend. There is one thing, at all events, upon which we are agreed—that a University education may be very useful for the purposes of life. Some hold that a man is worth nothing who has not gone through a University course; others, indeed, hold that it is not every man who has the capacity to derive any extraordinary and exceptional advantages from a University course. I have heard them maintain that when men of small brains ascend into the higher regions of study that they become mere thinkers—that is, inventors of puzzles for themselves and everybody else—and that they afterwards infest society in the shape of prigs. Some go so far as to argue that every man in the community should have a University education. This, however, seems to me to be going much too far. I see nothing derogatory to the reputation of our agricultural labourers in their confounding the science of nature with the very useful physics that are to be found in the local dispensary; or in their being entirely ignorant of the reasons that made vegetarians of the Pythagoreans; or of the speculations of certain other philosophers as to the gyrations of the planets, as to what the sun, moon, and stars portend in various conditions of obscurity or vividness; for our complaint is not that your anti-Catholic prejudices have kept us in complete ignorance of the higher branches of knowledge, but that your prejudices stay us in the pursuit of those higher studies; that we have a
    1902
    right to the advantages you confer upon others; and that you withhold from us that official recognition, that legislative stamp which confers upon University education its value in the estimation of society, and enables a man to utilize to the very utmost his superior attainments. To my mind it is only in the matter of University education that we have a very substantial and very grievous charge to bring against the Government. In every essential particular the primary schools are Catholic; vast numbers of the patrons are priests; the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses are all Catholics, who frequent the sacraments, who say the Rosary, who teach the Catechism in an admirable manner, and who would, I am confident, rather die than by word or deed call in question or in any way disparage the articles of faith or the practices we reverence and love. It is true that we are not permitted to hang upon the walls of our primary schools these emblems of our faith we hold dear; but as we know they have already been impressed upon the foreheads and hearts of the children by a mother's hand and a mother's words, and generally form the sole decoration of the peasant's home, this is not a point about which we deem it necessary to quarrel with you. I am convinced there is not a parish in the South, Centre, East, or West of Ireland where the presence of a schoolmaster or mistress who availed themselves of their position to circulate opinions at variance with Catholic teaching would be tolerated by the people for a week. The schools of the Nuns and Christian Brothers are of course all that could be desired for the purposes of intermediate education. There are the diocesan seminaries, and the Colleges throughout the United Kingdom, to which the children of the middle classes of the gentry—of all those, in fact, who can afford to spend somewhat largely in education—are exclusively sent, and, mark! they are all under ecclesiastical management. These latter institutions may be said to combine the primary and intermediate systems. The House, I think, will see in a moment that there is nothing irrelevant in my directing its attention to the circumstance that the primary and intermediate schools which the fathers and mothers of Catholic Ireland, of all classes, select of their own free choice, and to which

    1903
    only they will send their children, are under ecclesiastical management. My object is that you should draw the inevitable inference that the fathers and mothers of Catholic Ireland desire for their sons a University system under similar management. It is preposterous to tell us, because incredible, that you think that we wish for a breach at the very culminating point of the well of knowledge. There is impregnable testimony that we wish the education of our children to be completed subject to the influences under which it began; and it is for you to reconcile, if you can, with justice, with principles of equality, and of the due exercise of our parental authority, your withholding from us a University system we conscientiously approve, in order to force upon us one you yourselves prefer. What you are doing amounts purely and simply to an attempt to supersede us in the management of our children. My hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment (Mr. Plunket) not unnaturally puts forwards the idea that we ought to be satisfied with Trinity College. Over and over again we have shown that we cannot be satisfied with it, but he still perseveres in his view, as if he thought we did not know our own minds. But few Catholics avail themselves of Trinity College. Some bodies agree in disliking us as Roman Catholics, and their principal bond of union is hostility to all ecclesiastical authority. As those sentiments can have no place in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I turn with some confidence to them, and I can say, speaking for myself as a Catholic, that I never shall be found amongst the assailants of the honour or emoluments of the Episcopal Church of England. I also have confidence in the great mass of the English people, arising from my firm reliance in their love of justice and fair-play. I will only ask them, now that they can read, to turn to history, and learn from their own Protestant historians—from Hume and others—that when the State conferred wealth and power upon the Roman Catholic Church, that her wealth she distributed amongst the poor, that her power she used in their defence. I will then ask them to close the book, and see with their own eyes, if now, when she has neither wealth nor riches, when her position, fortunately, places her
    1904
    above the suspicion of being actuated by selfish considerations, her ministers are not as eager to be at the side of the poor man in all his struggles and trials as in the days of her wealth, and station, and authority? We, on our part, are anxious faithfully to discharge all the duties of citizenship. I fearlessly assert that in all the wide range of Her Majesty's dominions there are no more loyal citizens than those proposed to be incorporated by this Bill as the Committee of Founders of this Catholic College; that are loyal to the Throne from their profound veneration for the great principle of Monarchy; that are loyal to your institutions, from their convictions that they are better calculated than any other to contribute to and ensure the happiness of mankind. I shall conclude by reading a few words delivered from the pulpit of the Catholic pro-Cathedral of Dublin on the occasion of the celebration of O'Connell's centenary. That audience was completely representative of the Catholicity of Ireland. All the Archbishops and Bishops were present, together with representatives from all the municipal and corporate bodies and every section of society. The preacher said—
    "I beg of you to look at our position as Irishmen and as Catholics to-day. As Irishmen we all stand on the same platform of the law. The masses of our people are being educated mostly, it is true, under a State system, which, though far from being all that can be desired, has in many respects and in various localities been eminently useful. The foreign Church has been humbled, the rights of the occupiers of the soil have to some extent been recognized. Other minor advantages have been secured, and we are fast working ourselves into that position of equality and independence which every subject should occupy under the protection, of what I am not afraid to designate as the best balanced Constitution in the world. As Catholics we have every reason to be proud."
    These are the words of the Most Rev. Thomas W. Croke, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, one of those proposed by this Bill to be incorporated as one of the Committee of Founders of this Catholic College. These words are endorsed by the whole of the Catholic hierarchy, and yet, Sir, the State refuses to commission them to educate the youths of Ireland. Why is this? Their loyalty you cannot doubt; their virtue you do not impeach. With the best of you they are prepared to enter the lists as scholars. Why, then, do you refuse to place them

    1905
    in that position for which they are so pre-eminently qualified, and which our unqualified trust calls upon you to confer upon them? I blush to have to mention the reason—it is because they are Archbishops and Bishops of the Catholic Church. This is conduct that sorely tries those who advise the Irish people to have faith in the Imperial Parliament. When challenged on this question I hang my head with shame, and have nothing to say but that I cannot bring myself to believe that from mere prejudice the Parliament and people of England will persevere in a policy of injustice. I shall give my vote for the second reading of this Bill.
    MR. ERRINGTON: Mr. Speaker—It is very often said that Irish questions, and consequently Irish Members, occupy a somewhat undue share of the time and attention of the House. I think it is important to consider for a moment the exact meaning of this; for it must mean one of two things. Either it must mean that, in the opinion of this House, and of the public out-of-doors, there really is not at present in connection with Ireland any question of such vital and immediate importance as to justify us in pressing ourselves as we do on the attention of the House; or else it must mean that, no matter how urgent or important Irish questions may be, the House has neither the time, nor the inclination to devote itself to them. Now, let me at once, for my own part at least, entirely repudiate the latter interpretation. I have not long had the honour of a seat in this House; but even a shorter time than I have been here would have been enough to convince me that the House is always ready and willing to consider Irish questions in the fairest and most friendly manner. It must then be the case, that after all that has occurred, after all that has been said and done for years, in Ireland and in England, in this House and out of it, in the public Press, and through all the various channels by which the feeling of a nation is expressed, this country has not yet realized the fact, that the question of Education, and especially University Education, is, as regards Ireland, one which admits of no further delay; that it cannot continue for ever to be bandied about from Party to Party, to be treated year after year like some second or third-rate administrative measure, a Bankruptcy, or a
    1906
    Valuation Bill. But if this is so, if the importance of this question is so little understood, can we who come here under the heavy responsibility of knowing what it really is—that it affects not only the present and future of our own country, but also, and most materially, the interests of England as affected by its relations with Ireland—do otherwise than, fulfilling the pledges given to our constituents, press this question by every means in our power (every fair means of course) on the attention of the House? and the more so when, as I have observed, so many of us believe, that it only requires to be fully known and understood here, in order to obtain immediate redress. Surely no stronger justification than this is needed for the way in which we have urged—and in which, I say it plainly, we must continue to urge—this matter until the necessary redress is obtained. Sir, within the last two months the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, in one of those addresses to which his great eloquence and great position give a national importance, spoke at some length on the condition of Ireland; and in a tone rather of sorrow than anger alluded to the want of appreciation and gratitude we in Ireland had shown for the various measures he and his Friends had in late years passed for our benefit. I merely-mention this as one of the few points on which it is a pleasure to me to differ from, and even to contradict, the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure him he is quite mistaken in thinking that his measures of redress have not been most gratefully appreciated in Ireland; and let me say they are none the less so, because he did not succeed in doing all we hoped he would do, and all he tried most fairly and loyally to do. Our gratitude, let me add, is entirely disinterested, it refers to what has been done, and it is not, as gratitude is sometimes defined, a lively expectation of future favours. Why, daily we feel more and more how much we owe to these measures and to the right hon. Gentleman who carried them. Within the last fortnight we have had a striking illustration of their effect. The 12th of July, the great Orange anniversary, so long the occasion of shameful scenes of riot and bloodshed, has this year passed off with entire tranquillity. It was, as usual, celebrated with the flying of flags and the beating of drums; in fact, as

    1907
    usual, with all the pomp and circumstance of glorious war; but fortunately, and most unusually, without any of the other accompaniments of war. The reason of this is so fairly and so admirably put in a few lines in The Times of the 14th, that I venture to quote them, and the more so as they are from the pen of one whose judgment and knowledge of Irish matters are well known. The writer, after stating that the celebrations passed off quietly, says—
    "This result was not due to any disposition on the part of the Roman Catholic population to regard the demonstrations in some places as too insignificant to he worthy of notice, and in others as too formidable to be attacked with impunity, but rather to the influence of their clergy, and the abatement of sectarian rancour, which is more bitter in a subject race. With the consciousness of power derived from the possession of equal rights and privileges, with a preponderance of numbers even in 'the Protestant North,' they can afford to look with equanimity, if not a generous indulgence, on displays which were exasperating so long as they were regarded as the triumphs of an insolent ascendancy. They are now divested of this character, and are looked on as having little more significance than mere holiday pastimes. Orange flags floated from the steeples of many churches, and even private houses were festooned with lilies."
    Sir, I would ask—Could the right hon. Gentleman have hoped for happier or speedier results of his legislation? And if these are the results of a partial redress of our grievances, what may we not fairly and reasonably hope from that more complete redress for which we have so long prayed, and for which we are now once more Petitioners to Parliament? In the Birmingham speech to which I have alluded, the right hon. Gentleman, after glancing at certain Parliamentary incidents doubtless in the recollection of most hon. Members, and which he termed, I think, "little inconveniences and secondary evils," went on to speak in these remarkable terms of the condition of Ireland. He said he had an—
    "Undoubting and cheerful confidence that the Union of these two countries may be said now to rest on something like a firm foundation; and the aspect which they will present to the world will be no longer one open to ungenial criticism, but one which, on the contrary, will draw from every enlightened foreigner the admission that we endeavour in our legislation, and in our institutions, to secure justice to all, and to give to every man, so far as depends on us, the means of the healthful, beneficial, successful employment of the faculties with which God has endowed him."
    These, Sir, are noble words; they seem
    1908
    to me singularly applicable to the present question, and they are so eloquent as almost to delude us into the belief that they are actually being realized. I only wish they were. I fully admit the force of the appeal the right hon. Gentleman makes to foreign criticism; no one values more than I do what a Scotch poet calls the fairy gift—"To see ourselves as others see us;" but I take liberty to question whether the enlightened foreigner appealed to would take this very couleur-de-rose view of the situation. Why, I will suppose him here present this evening, seated in that Gallery opposite you, Sir. I would suppose him to be fairly conversant with the general state of the question; I would suppose him to know that all parties are unanimous as to the necessity of some sort of University education for Ireland; I would suppose him to know how earnestly and how anxiously the people of Ireland have long been praying for this education, but praying to have it under the only conditions under which they can or ought conscientiously to avail themselves of it; I would suppose him, last but not least, to know that to grant what they ask would not cost the British taxpayer one sixpence. Well, I venture to think that after listening to this debate, the enlightened foreigner would be somewhat puzzled; he would be inclined to ask some such question as this—" How is it that the English House of Commons, which not only has the reputation of being one of the most enlightened and liberal-minded Assemblies in the world, but has given proofs of this in its recent legislation for Ireland, hesitates so long to complete the redress it has begun, by concessions apparently so just, so all important to Ireland, so easy to England to grant? What is the mysterious cause, the secret difficulty, which hinders the accomplishment of this redress?" Probing the question to the bottom, and passing over side and irrelevant issues, this is the answer he would at length reach, and it is, I am convinced, the real root of the question. He would be told—"We have laid down for ourselves a rule that in future no public money shall be granted for any purpose which can by any means be construed as favouring or supporting religion, or any form of religion; this rule suits the present tone of our public opinion, and we are determined to force it on the people of Ireland,

    1909
    although we know it entails consequences abhorrent to the whole spirit and conscience of that nation, and that it offends and insults their most cherished and most respectable convictions." I think, Sir, that enlightened foreigner would return to his country a sadder, if a wiser man; sadder to think that no amount of fairness or generosity shown in the ordinary affairs of life, will guarantee that even common justice or common prudence will prevail when these questions come to be complicated with religious considerations. For we have it here—a rule purely speculative, which from the nature of things never can be demonstrated to be right or wrong, is to be forced on us in matters of the most practical and gravest importance and obligation; and this although we have just as much right, and are just as likely to be right, in considering that rule injurious and wrong, as you can possibly be in thinking it beneficial and right. I never like to use strong words, for they do not advance an argument; but I cannot help feeling very strongly on this point. It does seem to me so intolerant to force a mere opinion on those who differ from it when the question is one of the most practical and conscientious obligation perhaps in this world. I believe the intolerance of this will one day be recognized, and that then, as we, when we read history, look back with wonder at what we call the intolerance of our ancestors, so will those who come after us wonder, and, perhaps, with more reason, considering our greater enlightenment and civilization, that even in this 19th century, and in this country of so much real freedom, that in religious questions we could not rise above the pettiest and most miserable jealousies. People often talk of governing Ireland according to Irish ideas. I never liked the expression, because it suggests the absurdity that Irish ideas of justice and right are different from those of the rest of the world. What, of course, it really means is, that Ireland ought to be governed by laws suited to the circumstances of Ireland. We ask you, in fact, to govern Ireland as you would have governed England, had the conditions of England been similar to those of Ireland. This has been done, to a certain extent, in secular matters. The land laws of England, if any laws, were deeply rooted in the institutions of this country, so much so as al-
    1910
    most to have the sacred character of the proverbially unchanging laws of the Medes and Persians; yet when a liberal-minded Assembly came to realize that those laws, however suited to this country, were entirely unsuited to the conditions of Ireland, they were modified to suit Ireland, with the happiest and most promising results. When the same principles of justice are allowed to prevail in questions affecting religion, then the redress for which we ask will be complete. When England not only admits grudgingly the fact that Ireland is Catholic, but is prepared frankly to recognize that she must remain so, and that she should be allowed to develop herself fairly according to her Catholicism, as England is allowed to develop herself according to its Protestantism; then, in the words I have quoted, the union of these two countries will rest on something like a firm foundation, and will need no Coercion Acts to defend it against disaffection and disloyalty, which will then no longer exist. Sir, I wish I could hope that this would be the last debate on Irish University Education we may ever have to listen to. I know, of course, that under no circumstances can the Bill before us become law this year; it will, however, have done good service if it has helped to bring home to English and Scotch Members, and to the Leaders of Party, that justice and expediency both demand this question should be settled once for all, and disposed of. Let me say also that while recognizing the great ability with which this Bill has been drawn, and while perfectly willing to accept it as a solution of the question, I am not prepared to maintain that it is the only possible solution, or even the best that could be devised. On the contrary, I see many difficulties in its way: I see it array against itself the opposition of one most formidable body. If, then, other plans are proposed by which these difficulties and oppositions can be diminished or obviated, we ought to consider them, and I should do so in the fullest and fairest way. I know it is often said that this question is of so ticklish, so dangerous a kind that no prudent Minister would venture to touch it. Sir, the danger—if danger there is—is not in touching the question, but in leaving it so long and so hopelessly unsettled. It is now ripe for solution, and I am convinced that in the present state

    1911
    of feeling, a Minister needs only the courage to approach it, in order "from the nettle danger to pluck the flower of safety," and this not only for his country's benefit, but especially and preeminently for the benefit of his Party. No one who knows the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will suggest for a moment that, in considering his course on such a question, he would be governed entirely by Party interests; at the same time, we all know that, in addition to higher motives, he would have to give due weight to Party considerations. Under these circumstances, then, if we have convinced the right hon. Gentleman—or if, as I cannot help thinking, he has long been convinced—that to settle this question would be a great act of justice, as it certainly would be one of the most statesmanlike expediency, I feel that I can appeal to him in the interests of his Party, although I do not belong to it, as well as in the interests of his country and of mine, to give us this evening some assurance that this question shall have his early attention, and that he will, by dealing with it, help to bring about the reality of those eloquent words I have already quoted—
    "That we endeavour in our legislation and in our institutions to secure justice to all, and to give to every man, so far as depends on us, the means of the healthful, beneficial, successful employment of the faculties with which God has endowed him."
    MR. A. MOORE: Sir, at this late period of the Session many will, doubtless, feel reluctance in opening this great and difficult question, and were it not of transcendent importance, the House would not now be easily moved to consider it. The position of Irishmen, as regards University education, we were told three years ago by the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister is "bad," "scandalously bad;" but what are our feelings when we turn to the Report of the Census Commissioners, published last year, and we find that we are actually in a state of retrogression? They tell us that of the whole population of the country only 24,170 persons are in receipt of superior education. Now, this superior education includes all of both sexes, from the little boy of 10 or 12 years of age who is wearily turning over the pages of his Latin grammar, or the young girl who is learning her first
    1912
    words of French, to the student of metaphysics or higher mathematics; but unsatisfactory as these figures are, we are further told that they indicate a decrease upon the figures of the previous decade. We are further told that during the same period (1861 to 1871) 155 intermediate schools have closed. These figures are not very encouraging; but if we turn to England for a moment and consider the generous efforts that have been made of late years in the cause of education, our feelings of anxiety are intensified to exasperation. In 1866 there were 600,000 children in the Government schools of England; now there are 1,800,000; the average attendance during the same period has grown from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000. I mention these figure to show the energy with which the cause of education has been pushed forward in England; and if we turn to Scotland we find still greater efforts—four Universities for 3,000,000 of people, all thrown open to all comers, and giving all a chance in the battle of life. And now, Sir, what is our own position? We, too, have Universities and Colleges, and schools of Royal foundation, endowed schools, and free schools belonging to various societies, and many of them richly endowed, and still the result is most miserable. The reason is not far to seek. All these treasures of learning are offered to the Irish Catholic at the price of what is far dearer to him—his truest conviction. That the Irish will never accept any system other than denominational is perfectly certain; and if proof be required of it, abundant proof may be found in their continued abstention from Trinity College and from availing themselves of the Queen's Colleges. In the former, Catholics attending lectures during the years 1870 to 1873, for which I have calculated, were about in the proportion of 1 to 8. As regards the Queen's Colleges, we find in them, in some instances—take, for example, the Queen's College at Belfast—less than 3 per cent Catholics during the same period. Again, look at the enormous amount collected in private subscriptions to sustain the Catholic University established by the Bishops, amounting to something over £200,000; but more than this, the Irish people have left no stone unturned in their efforts to impress upon England and upon this House their unswerving in-

    1913
    tention of accepting only a purely denominational system. Over and over again this earnest desire has been expressed by Petitions and by public meetings. It has been made a test question with Members seeking admission to this House. Nor is this merely the feeling of the lower orders, for in the year 1870 my hon. Friend the Member for Ros-common (The O'Conor Don) was entrusted with a Petition of the same purport, signed by 960 noblemen and gentlemen. But if arguments were wanting to establish my point, we need not go further than the National system, which was instituted on a perfectly secular basis, and has gradually merged into a purely denominational system. And now, Sir, if, as I feel sure is the ease, you are convinced upon this point that only a denominational system will be accepted by the great bulk of Irishmen, it seems to me, Sir, that you must ask yourself this question—not whether we are right or wrong, so much as whether such being the case, it is wise or politic in you to refuse higher education altogether, merely because you cannot agree as to the basis of that education. The Irish people are most anxious for University education; they know their own deficiencies in this regard, and they lay the blame upon you. They are most anxious to raise the standard of education throughout their country. They know well that no nation can be great or prosperous which is not educated; and they all know well there are no shackles so strong and no fetters so tight as those forged by ignorance; and they believe that in the past your policy was to keep them in darkness and ignorance, that you might more easily hold them in subjection; and some there are who, perhaps, still think that in the present hapless plight of higher education in Ireland there lingers still a trace of that same narrow policy. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to take this question in hand, and to come to our assistance with a generous though tardy measure of justice. How can they, themselves Denominationalists, refuse to us what for themselves and their children they insist upon? Even while we are talking time is speeding on, a generation is passing away, and thousands of careers are being thwarted and blighted in the bud. The loss to Ireland is not a pecuniary loss, which is easily made
    1914
    good. It is a loss which none can repay—time itself. The effects of this measure are beyond calculation. I believe it would result in a great accession of strength to the Empire. Only education can conquer prejudice. And I believe that under a fair system of higher education many of the prejudices of centuries would disappear. Irishmen would see the hopelessness of revolution and the necessity of union. I believe. Sir, it would result in the more efficient administration of justice. Centuries of misrule have caused the Irish peasant to look upon the law as his natural enemy, and to shield the criminal even in cases where he detests his crime. Education would teach him that the law is only the arm of society raised in self-defence. But far above these results I look for a fresh accession of strength to the national life in the uniting of all Irishmen in one mind and one purpose, for the welfare of their country—a union only to be looked for on the firm basis of equal rights and privileges—a union impossible as long as the great mass of the people labour under grave civil disabilities; but remove this one last link in the chain of ascendancy, and I believe the result will be a prosperous and united people.
    MR. WHALLEYsaid, the question was—Was history to be entirely forgotten in this matter? When Gentlemen, speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church, talked of education, what they meant was to prevent secular education, the emancipation of the mind, invariably attended with some loss of the ecclesiastical authority which was the most damaging to national and social interests. Notwithstanding all the concessions which had been made to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, their disaffection had increased; and not satisfied with all they had obtained, the heads of that Church were now demanding full control over the higher education of the country. Hitherto they professed to be content with claiming equal civil rights, which had been granted them; but they were now claiming the public money for the purpose of carrying out the object which they had in view in connection with University education. He hoped the Government would maintain the bulwarks which our ancestors had erected, and the grand results which they had secured not only for this country but for the whole world. He gave

    1915
    his most determined opposition to the present Bill, though he feared that opposition would prove ineffectual.
    MR. O'REILLYsaid, if the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down were to be regarded as an enlightened example of the education which he advocated and would enforce on others, he trusted that his (Mr. O'Reilly's) children would be spared from the blighting, dwarfing, and stunting influence which had produced such a result; and that some accurate knowledge of the truth of history might save them from an ignorance which was almost inconceivable, but which must be genuine, for he thought nobody possibly could feign it. The present Bill was a proposal to deal with a problem which had occupied the attention of the country for years, and which was well worthy of consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman who opposed the second reading (Mr. Plunket) had directed his speech entirely to a criticism on the details of the Bill as they affected the interests of the well-endowed, long-established, and powerful institution of which he was the Representative. He did not intend to follow him into those details, but would consider the general question of University education. He was disposed to agree with many of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe). He agreed with him that much benefit might be derived from what might be termed the system of payment by results, but it was open to this great criticism—that unendowed and unfavoured institutions were heavily handicapped in contests with well-endowed and long-established ones. Notwithstanding this disadvantage, he believed the Roman Catholic schools need not shrink from the contest. There was but one arena in which the Roman Catholic schools could test their efficiency—namely, in the examination of the London University. At the examination of that University in July, 1877, 10 out of 75 Honours men came from Catholic schools, and most of them, he was proud to say were Irishmen. In the First Division 34 out of 222 came from Catholic schools; but in the Second Division he admitted that these schools were not so successful, having had only three out of 30. The highest competition in England was that for the Indian Civil Service. He was educated
    1916
    in a Roman Catholic College, one of the students of which came up to compete for the Indian Civil Service, and having had only a few months special training obtained, the first place. These examples showed that the students of Roman Catholic schools need not shrink from competition with others, although in many respects the conditions were unfair to them. When he was making some inquiries into the state of the Civil Service in Dublin, he found many young men employed as writers in the Public Service at 10 d. an hour who were keeping their terms at Trinity College. If these young men had been Roman Catholics they would have found that practically, a University education was denied them. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) would have said—"We have no tests; why do they not come to Trinity College?" The question whether there was a want of superior education in Ireland need not be debated so far as Roman Catholics were concerned, because since 1873 it had been admitted by successive Governments that it was grievously and scandalously bad. They were offered a "united mixed education," and what was their objection to it? It was thought by many that it was a purely ecclesiastical objection, raised by their ecclesiastical superiors, and accepted without consideration, because it was so presented to them. It was nothing of the sort. It was an objection founded on reason and common sense, on their own knowledge, and by the great mass of educated Roman Catholics. What was the history of the question? In 1845 Sir Robert Peel, with that wide grasp of statesmanship which distinguished him, saw that there was a deficiency of superior education, and to meet that want proposed a measure by which what were known as the Queen's Colleges were founded in Ireland. On introducing that measure, Sir James Graham explained in two words what had been the cause why all previous attempts had failed. He said that there should no longer be any interference, positive or negative, with conscientious scruples on matters of religion. Positive interference might have been prevented, but not negative; that was impossible. The teaching of the three "R's" was a mere mechanical act; but the higher branches of education touched

    1917
    religion at a thousand points, entering into the formation of the mind, and all the principles and prejudices which gave it form and colour. History, for instance, was not a mere string of dates and facts—if so Pinnacle's Catechism and The Gazetteer were histories. But it was a narration of the actions of men with the principles and motives which dictated and guided those actions. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite take the history taught by Lingard; and yet everyone admitted that Lingard was a great historian. So was Macaulay; but they all knew how essentially different was their treatment of the Revolution, Lingard dismissing it with scorn, and Macaulay filling pages with apologies for the English statesmen who were base enough to take bribes from the French Court. Would they take D'Aubigné's History of the Reformation, or Bossuet's work on the variations of the Protestant Churches? Would they adopt Robert-son's view of society, taught to this day in the Scotch Universities, or Maitland's Correction? What without the voice of the living teacher would be mental philosophy? Nothing but a string of maxims and dry forms of logic. Roman Catholics objected to "united mixed education" because practically it must be in the hands of one school of philosophy and history or the other—in their hands or in those of their opponents—or it must be emasculated and cut down to a mere mechanical business of dates and facts—a bone-dry education which it would not be worth the while of any young man to obtain. That was why the Catholic youth of Ireland had not been able to avail themselves of the advantages of the Queen's Colleges, and why, too, they asked to be put upon a footing of equality with their Protestant fellow-countrymen. Why should not all social as well as political disabilities be removed? Why should not all the honours of University education be available to them? Why should it not be open to them to obtain that teaching and that knowledge to which young men of Protestant families could aspire? It had been said that the Catholic University was a failure. Well, he admitted that it had not been as great a success as they could wish; but that fact was readily accounted for by the difficulties under which it had had to labour. In the consideration of this question he
    1918
    hoped the House would bear in mind that the efforts of successive Governments since the year 1845 to settle it was a recognition and admission that something was required to be done in the direction indicated by the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend. The Roman Catholics of Ireland asked that their institutions should receive fair treatment, and they offered in return to submit to any test of teaching which the jealousy of Parliament might devise. They also offered that, in the event of Roman Catholic institutions for teaching being put into the position of the older Colleges, their independence and self-government should be as complete as those of any other similar establishments. What he asked on behalf of the Bishops and the other ecclesiastical superiors of the Roman Catholic Church was, not the entire control and management of education but a sort of visitorial power simply in matters of faith and morals. Ho asked whether it was wise of any Government of this country for the time being to continue this condition of admitted disadvantage to the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, which resulted on their part in a feeling of injury and of injustice?
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that although he came from the North of Ireland, he approached this question in a spirit of conciliation, and not of bigotry. He had been educated personally at the Universities of Bonn and Munich, both of which were situated in the midst of a Roman Catholic population, and in neither had he ever heard an allusion to religion as a topic of discussion. With this experience of two Universities, in which a godless or mixed system was followed, he confessed that he had failed to perceive in it the slightest danger to religion or morals. The students lived in a friendly way, and appeared not to forget the religion of their youth. They acquired information on an equal footing, all studying alike, and as knowledge advanced, the curriculum was altered. He objected to this Bill, because it drew a hard-and-fast line as to the curriculum to be enforced, and which was not to be altered without the express authority of the Roman Catholic Bishops. If this Bill were passed it would prohibit Protestant students from pursuing any course of study they might deem it advisable to enter upon. He objected to

    1919
    the Bill for another reason—namely, that the Church of which he was a member had been disestablished in order to conciliate our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and to attain that end a huge confiscation had taken place. Now, it was sought to give a large sum of money to another Body for an exclusive course of teaching. He objected to that, as did also, he believed the people of England, the people of Scotland, and all the people in Ireland who were not followers of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). The 2nd clause of the Bill provided that the first Professors should be the persons therein named, and that the graduates should not be eligible, unless they obtained a certificate from the existing Catholic Uuiversity. Consequently the new Body would, in fact, be instituted by the mere certificate of 12 Roman Catholic Bishops. The Representatives of the body of the University of Dublin had, on the contrary, passed their examinations and taken their degrees. Consequently, the provision in the present measure was one of the most extraordinary he had ever seen in an Act of Parliament.
    MR. BUTTsaid, the hon. Member was entirely mistaken. The Crown would nominate a very small number of graduates, because they would be essential for the first institution of the College. This was the common form that been adopted ever since Charters were first granted. In the present instance there was to be some check, and the Queen was not to nominate anyone who did not get a certificate of fitness from the Professors of the present Catholic University in Dublin.
    MR. MACARTNEYremarked that that was the same as getting a certificate from 12 Bishops of the Romish Church.
    MR. BUTTsaid, the Bishops would have nothing at all to do with the matter. The Rector and Professors were, apart from the Bishops, to grant the certificates.
    MR. MACARTNEYpointed out that those persons were under the direct contral of the Bishops. Then, what was going on upon the Continent? Upon one side they saw ranged the Ultramontanes of Rome; and upon the other side, those who were the supporters of free thought. In France a great contest had gone on, and the former party had gained a posi-
    1920
    tion; so in Belgium it had gained a victory, but it was so resisted that blood ran in the streets. In Switzerland there had been a contest for many years, and in Spain and Austria that party had gained the upper hand; and he wished to call attention to the fact that in Spain it had so far earned its toleration that it had prevented the name of"Protestant" from being put up in that country. ["Oh, oh!"] That was a fact. Then the scheme proposed was one which would not give satisfaction to the Roman Catholics, though it was one to smother liberty of thought in the University of Ireland, and to prevent education having the force which it now had. Therefore, he should oppose the Bill to the utmost of his power. But it must not be said in Ireland that because they would not pass this measure, the House would not grant University education in that country. The fact was that because the Roman Catholics would not have any education but that controlled by priests, they would not have any at all. The Degrees, Scholarships, and Fellowships of Trinity College had been thrown open to Roman Catholics, whose morals could not be in danger in an institution where seven out of the nine Roman Catholic Judges received their education.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Macartney) had referred to his education on the Continent, and yet he had come back an Orangeman and a red-hot Protestant.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that he was not an Orangeman, but that he was a red-hot Protestant.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: The hon. Member had come back, and now adorned the House with his eloquence as a red-hot Protestant. The hon. Member had stated that in Spain the name of Protestant was not tolerated. The principle of the Catholics was that there was one religion—the true religion—and that every other was false. Therefore it was their business to teach that religion where they could, and to hope to prevent the teaching of a false religion. But the Protestant principle was that there was no true religion; that every religion had some truth and some falsehood in it; and that it mattered very little what religion you professed, since the road to Heaven was broad, and the road beneath was narrow.

    1921
    But referring to this debate, was there any reality about it? Why was it unreal? Because they thought the Bill had no chance of passing; that in a short time it would be dead, and that in a week it would be no more thought of. Why had the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) asked for a day for discussing it? and why had the Government, which had so little time at its command, granted it? Not because the details were to be agreed to, but because the hon. and learned Member wished to obtain a sanction of the principle of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been eminently successful in attaining that end, for the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) had admitted that since the disestablishment of the Protestant Church in Ireland and the taking away of the Maynooth Grant we owed a great debt to the Irish people. The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) honourably tried to pay that debt; he said that University education was scandalously bad, and that it was an imperious necessity to remedy that evil. This was a great gain for the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and should it be said that the great Liberal Party would refuse to pay that which they admitted they owed? He believed that when the time came they would be ready to pay the debt. But Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes—he mistrusted the Greeks when they offered presents. What was now offered by the right hon. Member for the University of London was nothing but his own system of payment by results carried to its legitimate conclusion, and it would be a death-blow to religious education. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman propose such a system for England last year in order to get rid of religious differences in England? Because he knew the English people would not accept it when it touched themselves. Nor did he escape those differences by his system, because everything depended on the Examiners, and students would learn all subjects in a Catholic or Protestant sense, according as the Board of Examiners were Catholics or Protestants. If the Examiners were Catholics, students would not go to Protestant teachers, lest they should be plucked; and if the Examiners were Catholics, the Protestants would not stand it. While receiving the admission
    1922
    of the right hon. Gentleman, they refused his plan, because they knew it would fail. It had failed from a secular point of view in this country, because it encouraged "cramming" to the sacrifice of good training. The right hon. Gentleman suggested his plan because £11,000 a-year was made by one man who was a "crammer," but not a true Professor and a learned man. The fundamental question, which could not be escaped by any nostrums, was whether education was to be regarded as a mere increase of learning or as a training of the mind. Up to 1848 at Cambridge it was said that mathematics and classics were not worth remembering, and were only a means of discipline; but that was now said to be a fatal error, and people valued learning because it made clerks at 15 s. a-week, instead of ploughmen at 25 s., and economists wished to make us all shopkeepers. That was the ruin of the country, and it made discontented workmen who joined unions. We could alter all that only by forming and training the mind, which, in the interest of the State, was everything. Last year the people of this country recoiled from payment by results, and determined to take steps in favour of religious education. The Irish party supported the Government in doing that for England, and they now asked that the same principle might be carried out in Ireland.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he would not weary the House by stating the many attempts made since the passing of Catholic Emancipation to give a good system of University education in Ireland, but none of these attempts had as yet been successful. Instead of being surprised at the subject being again brought forward, what he wondered at was that it had not been long since forced on the attention of Her Majesty's Government. In 1873 it was stated by the then Prime Minister that the condition of the Catholics in Ireland in the matter of University education was scandalous; but since then the scandal had not been removed, nor had the grievance complained of at that time been lessened. He would remind the House that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) did not propose an abstract Resolution, but a definite plan, to remedy the evil; and as hon. Members, in the course of the discussion, strayed away some-

    1923
    what from the provisions of the Bill, he would call their attention to the real question before them. The principle of the Bill was to redress the existing grievance of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland by the establishment of a Roman Catholic College in connection with the University of Dublin on principles which would be agreeable to the Roman Catholic clergy and laity. That was the principle of the Bill; and its main details he argued were of a character which ought to receive the approval of the House. Combating the objections taken by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin to the provisions of the measure, the hon. Gentleman referred to the proposed constitution of the Roman Catholic College. The powers conferred on the Bill by the Committee of Founders were not, he maintained, of that sweeping character described by the hon. and learned Member. The Committee of Founders were to constitute a moiety of the Senate; they were to have the appointment of the theological Professors, and they were to have the nomination of a certain number of visitors. A veto was also proposed to be given to the Committee of Founders, or as he would call it at once the Committee of 12 Roman Catholic Bishops, upon any changes which might be made in the curriculum of the University. This was the full extent of the powers to be conferred on them, and there was, he contended, no justification for believing that those powers would be exercised unreasonably, or that the Roman Catholic Bishops would be opposed to knowledge and enlightenment. The Provost and Fellows of Trinity College, he was reminded, were to have an exactly similar power. If this Bill were candidly considered it would be seen that it was not a Bill of that extreme character which it had been represented to be. The groundwork of objections to this Bill was the dread of ecclesiastical influence. That was the real difficulty that had always rested in the way of University education in Ireland. Ever since Roman Catholic Emancipation the Roman Catholic laity had been treated as if they, were children, and not able to use their own freedom to protect themselves. Parliament told them that they would protect them against their ecclesiastical superiors. What had been the result of that
    1924
    system? In the first place they had prevented generations of young men from receiving a University education. Not only was the number of Catholics who now received a University education miserably small in proportion to their wealth, their position, and their population, but it was smaller than the number of Catholics who received a University education 40 years ago. In the second place, the system of protecting the Roman Catholic laity against ecclesiastical influence left them no choice but that of going into schools and Colleges which were entirely under ecclesiastical control, or of going into institutions against which their consciences rebelled. That system achieved a result the very opposite of that intended by its authors. The Roman Catholics of Ireland could not accept the only institutions offered them, and it could not be denied that they desired the system of education provided for in the Bill. In former years it had been usual to say that the laity were opposed to that system; but considering how large a sum of money had been subscribed to the Roman Catholic College, it was now impossible to employ that argument. The present Government was supposed to be the guardian of the system of religious education, and he might naturally expect them to support a proposal of this kind. It might, perhaps, be easier to create a separate University, rather than adopt the plan proposed by the Bill, but he did not think that this would be the most beneficial course to take. However, if the plans now proposed were rejected they might have to fall back on the establishment of a separate Catholic University, and it should not be forgotten that such a University already existed in one part of Her Majesty's dominion, and what had been granted to Canada could not be permanently refused to Ireland.
    MR. CHARLES LEWISopposed the Bill upon the ground that it contained proposals of a retrogressive character. In the first place, it proposed to erect, at the public expense a new sectarian College; and, in the second place, it proposed to repeal the Act passed by the Legislature for unsecularizing Trinity College, Dublin. The Bill, besides being thus retrogressive, was one that should be looked at in its wider aspect, and considered in its relation to primary and intermediate

    1925
    education. All that could be urged in favour of the Bill might also be used as an argument for the alteration of the conditions of primary and intermediate education, both of which were still, to a certain extent, unsettled. The necessary consequence of the passing of the Bill would be that Roman Catholics would also be entitled to separate schools. He denied that, as regarded the higher or University education, the Roman Catholics had practically any ground of complaint since the establishment of the Queen's Colleges, which, notwithstanding all the difficulties they had had to contend against, were doing excellent work in the cause of education. The proposal was to endow a new sectarian College for the Roman Catholics out of the confiscated property of the Irish Church; but such a thing was impossible at a time like the present, when one of our Law Courts had the other day decided that it was not competent for an English Protestant gentleman to endow out of his own funds a purely Protestant College at Oxford, as it was opposed to the spirit of the Act passed, extending the advantages of that University to all classes irrespective of creed. As for the proposed endowment of a new Roman Catholic University, he should like to know what denominations could in these days make such a demand upon Parliament with any chance of success. The real deficiency in Ireland was not in the supply of means for an University education, but in willingness on the part of a certain section of the community to take advantage of the opportunities for Education which were so widely given. From the first the Queen's Colleges had been slandered and obstructed in every possible way, and it would not have been surprising, under the circumstances, had they proved to be a failure. He did not admit, however, that they had failed, or that there was any statistical proof of a deficiency of University education in Ireland. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) pointed out in 1873 that Ireland in the matter of Art degrees stood higher than either England or Scotland, the proportion for England being one Art degree to every 30,000 of the population, and that for Scotland one to every 26,000, while Ireland showed one to every 16,000. There were 230 Roman Catholic students in the
    1926
    three Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Gal-way; and, regard being had to the relative populations of the Three Kingdoms, and especially to the limited class from whom in Ireland University students were necessarily drawn, it might safely be affirmed that Ireland was in some respects at the head of the list, and was in no case at the bottom. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) proposed in his Bill the destruction of Gal-way College. The College survived that blow; and whereas the number of its students was in 1872–3 138, it had increased last year to 177, while the total number of students at the three Colleges was approaching very nearly to the maximum number ever obtained. He objected to this Bill as an act of retrogression, and he believed that a vast national advantage would be attained by holding fastly and firmly to the system of united secular education in Ireland.
    MR. COGANsaid, that the principle that religious disabilities existed which prevented the Roman Catholic people of Ireland from availing themselves of the benefits of University education had been affirmed by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone). It had also been declared in an address signed by many leading Roman Catholic Peers and public men. All persons of all creeds and classes ought to be placed on terms of perfect equality in the matter of education. There ought to be one great national University in Ireland with competing Colleges, and he could not but think that the question before the House would sooner or later be settled—as he felt it ought to be—on that basis.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he fully admitted the importance of the proposals made in the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt); but he must add that they appeared to him to be a total reversal of the policy with respect to University education which had of late years been adopted for the whole of the United Kingdom. The Bill proposed first to alter the present constitution of Trinity College; secondly, to adopt the existing Catholic University, and establish it as a new College; and, thirdly, to unite this new College with Trinity College into a University. The proposal to alter the constitution of Trinity College had been so fully dealt with by his hon. and

    1927
    learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) that it was hardly necessary for him to go into that part of the question; but it appeared to him at least strange, that within four years after Trinity College of its own motion had obtained the sanction of Parliament to the abolition of tests they should be asked to reverse that proceeding—to close Trinity College again and make it entirely a Protestant College, with the exception of certain Professorships, Scholarships, and other emoluments which were to be taken from it and devoted to University purposes. But this was not all; for the hon. and learned Member further proposed to lower the College from its present status as a University—to deprive it of its prestige and of its power of conferring academical degrees, and also of a certain portion of those revenues which were not more than sufficient for the purposes for which they were now used. This old and famous Trinity College was then to be formed into a University with an institution of which—he meant to speak with no disrespect—but which must be admitted to be a new and comparatively unknown College, and which was to be endowed with £470,000 from the surplus funds of the Disestablished and Disendowed Church. It was admitted—and it required no argument to prove—that this St. Patrick's College was to be a purely denominational College, and it would be even more than denominational in the ordinary sense of the term. Those on the Government side of the House had been urged to support this measure on the ground of their sympathy with religious education. For years they had resisted the abolition of tests in the English Universities; but he failed to see how an endeavour to maintain the connection between the English Universities and the National Church could be said for a moment to be the same thing as, after you had disestablished and disendowed your National Church, endowing and establishing another Church, so far as University education was concerned. He had never heard that even the most ardent advocate of the retention of tests and of religious education in our English Universities had for a moment desired that the control of the education not only of the members of the Church of England, but
    1928
    of all students in our English Universities should be handed over to the Bishops of the Church of England. Yet this was practically the result which would be attained by this Bill. It was said that no system of University education would be acceptable to the Catholics of Ireland which was not under the control and supervision of the authorities of their own Church. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick had laid a good deal of stress on his proposal to introduce a lay element into the Senate or Governing Body of the University; but there was as much left to the imagination in his mode of carrying out that proposal as there was in the constitution of the Council of the Bill of 1873. In both cases blanks were left for the names of the first Governing Bodies, though upon those names the whole scheme really depended. But let the lay element proposed in this Bill be ever so independent at first, it had been clearly shown that in a few years it must come under the control of the Committee of Pounders—in other words, of the Roman Catholic Bishops. Strange to say, this point was not alluded to by any supporter of the Bill before the speech of the hon. Member for Eoscommon (the O'Conor Don), who said the provisions with regard to it were not an essential feature of the Bill; an argument which recalled the history of the debate on the Bill of 1873. But would the Bishops agree to that interpretation, and consent to this being considered not to be an essential feature of the Bill? In spite of what had been said as to the lay element, he could not but think that it was really intended, though it was—and he did not mean it offensively—to some extent disguised, that the Committee of Founders should entirely control this new College; and besides the government of the College, should also, either directly or indirectly, have the absolute power of dismissing any officer, including, he believed, the Sector. That was the case with regard to the proposed St. Patrick's College. But the hon. and learned Member proceeded, out of two denominational Colleges, to constitute an undenominational University; though from the speech of the noble Lord the Member for West-meath (Lord Robert Montagu), it would seem that, in the opinion of some members of the Roman Catholic Church, such an idea was as hopeless of success as

    1929
    an attempt to combine oil and water. There was, however, an important provision under which no statute of the University could be passed without the approval of the Committee of Founders of St. Patrick's College, which clearly showed it was intended that this was not to be an undenominational University in the ordinary sense of the word; on the contrary, the University examinations and prizes would be controlled through this power of veto by the Committee of Founders of St. Patrick's College; and this control would apply in the University and in Trinity College, not only to members of their own faith, but also by way of a regulation or check upon the studies of undergraduates, of whom a majority might, and probably would, for some time belong to another communion. This was a power which the Roman Catholic Bishops had never yet claimed, but it was practically conceded to them under the provisions of this Bill. This was the University which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to endow with £330,000 of the surplus funds of the Disestablished Church. He had endeavoured to state fairly the proposals of the Bill, which appeared to him to be a distinct and complete reversal of the policy that Parliament had for years past adopted in the matter of University education. The hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) stated that, in his opinion, if this measure were rejected it would be because of dislike to the Roman Catholic religion; but did the hon. Member, who knew the history of University legislation, suppose that what was asked in this Bill would be conceded to any religious body in the United Kingdom? Objections might have been urged to this proposal before 1869; but after the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church these objections had increased ten-fold. Was it quite consistent in hon. Members who in 1869 had strenuously promoted the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of Ireland, on the ground of religious equality, to ask Parliament in 1877, on a similar ground, to endow a denominational Roman Catholic College out of the surplus funds of that very Church, and thus to place one denomination, in this respect, in a totally different position from that which the others desired? It was possible, of course, on this or any other matter that
    1930
    Parliament might reverse a system of policy, and those on the Ministerial side of the House were not responsible for the policy that was adopted in 1869. But it would be admitted that such a policy so clearly defined and so long adhered to, could not be reversed except for the most cogent reasons; and he had heard no such reasons put forward in the debate of that night. He remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, on introducing the University Bill in 1873, stated that, in his opinion, the condition of University education in Ireland was—at any rate, as regarded Roman Catholics—scandalously bad. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick had made a very similar statement to-night. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was bound to say that, in his humble opinion, that statement was full of exaggeration. What were the facts of the case? The whole argument for the Bill in 1873, and the whole argument of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick for this Bill, was based upon the view that the education given in the Faculty of Arts was all that could be really considered as University education. He did not think that could for a moment be maintained. If it could be maintained, he believed it was the fact that graduates in Arts were greater in proportion to the population of Ireland than they were in England or Scotland in proportion to the population of those two Kingdoms. But he demurred altogether to such a view; and he might add, with regard to the Queen's University, at any rate, the number of graduates in Arts was no test whatever of the usefulness of that University. At the Queen's University certain studies in Arts were included in the curriculum for professional degrees; and, therefore, there was no temptation for persons intending to follow professional pursuits to graduate in Arts. Was it not one of the leading doctrines of University reformers that studies of the kind not hitherto included in the Faculty of Arts should be more and more, day by day, regarded as the highest part of a University education? If that applied to England it applied far more to a poor country like Ireland. There you found comparatively few whose means enabled them to follow Art studies alone; for there was a natural tendency on the part of those intending to adopt

    1931
    a professional life to graduate in professional Faculties. If you looked upon Universities in Ireland solely with regard to their Faculties of Art, you would practically omit all consideration of the poorer class of students and regard them solely—as he thought was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) in 1873—as the monopoly of the rich. But if all Faculties were taken into account, he believed that the number of students in the Universities in Ireland were more in proportion to the population of Ireland than the students in the English Universities were to the population of England. But he thought the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would agree with him that population was no real test at all. [Mr. Butt: Hear, hear!] In this matter, there was only one class of the people to be considered—those who could avail themselves of a University education. Now, what were the classes whose sons would benefit by the Bill? The mercantile, the professional, and the landowning classes; and everybody knew that in them there was an actual preponderance of Protestants, so that if there were a comparatively small number of Catholic graduates, it might be because the Catholic parents were numerically inferior. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis) had referred to other causes which would diminish the number of Roman Catholics able to benefit by the Bill; but he would also mention that, at any rate at present, the Roman Catholic Church did not appear to encourage her students for Orders to attend any University at all, but preferred that the education of those students should be separate. He need not refer to the Protestants; for they had no grievance, and were quite satisfied with the present system, finding either in Trinity College or the Queen's Colleges the facilities for education which they required. If they wanted anything beyond these, rich endowments, and wide curricula, and modern facilities for locomotion, might well attract their sons to Oxford or Cambridge. Nor were all Roman Catholics at a disadvantage, for some went to the Queen's Colleges and to the Dublin University, and consequently it was not fair to say that they laboured
    1932
    under any disabilities, in the sense, at least, in which the word had been formerly used. All the Universities were now open to all religions alike; and if the Roman Catholics, from conscientious scruples, did not choose to avail themselves of the benefits of them, they were certainly not under the same kind of disability as in former days, when the Universities were altogether closed against Roman Catholics. He respected their scruples, and would be glad if they were not incompatible with the advantages of a University education; but he questioned very much, if such a College as the hon. and learned Member for Limerick desired were established, whether, he would find any considerable number of the class he desired to benefit qualified for admission to a University. He did not think that the paucity of Roman Catholic students was entirely due to the want of an endowment, or the inability to confer a degree, but rather to the want of a system of intermediate education. In introducing the Bill of 1873, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had stated that strong representations had been made to him of the very pressing necessity for improvement in the system of intermediate education in Ireland; and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had appreciated that want to some extent, and had proposed to devote a small sum to intermediate education; but he thought it was clear that the two subjects could not be dealt with together, and that the hon. and learned Member, in attempting to found an University without constructing a system of intermediate education, was practically attempting to put on a roof before building the walls. There was no evidence to prove that there was any considerable number of young persons in Ireland who would benefit by the Bill; but, on the contrary, he feared it was only too true that many of those who came to the Queen's Colleges were youths whose previous education would not qualify them for admission to an University, or even to the senior classes of a good school. If that were so, and the opinion met with much assent, was it not clear that the question of intermediate education was the more pressing of the two? He had already stated that this was a question to which he hoped,

    1933
    next Session, to call the earnest attention of the House; but until it was dealt with, there was no real necessity for the passing of any University Bill, and he could not approve of the measure which had been laid before the House, or recommend Parliament on this occasion to depart from the policy in which it had persisted for so many years.
    MR. BUTT, in reply, said, that the comparison of population in Ireland was no test on this question. The entire number-of Roman Catholics availing themselves of the present system of University education in Ireland was only 170, showing that they did not approve of the present system of University education. He denied that the Bishops and Archbishops were to have full control of the College, the power which they were to have being simply that of excluding certain books which they might deem immoral. That power it was surely not unfair to give to those whom the Roman Catholic people trusted as the guardians of their children. He had authority to state that there was no objection on the part of Roman Catholics to having a Protestant examiner in any branch of learn-
    1934
    ing, provided that Roman Catholics had to teach. As to the veto on changes in the curriculum, he asked whether it was unreasonable, where they had a course of study coming up to all the requirements of modern science, to say that before they changed that course, both the Catholic and the Protestant Colleges must agree to the alteration? In Ireland the bond of science and intellect was too strong to be severed by difference of religion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 200: Majority 145.—(Div. List, No. 253.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for three months.
    House adjourned at Two o'clock.