HC Deb 13 April 1905 vol 145 cc91-153

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (for Committee on Civil Services and Revenue Departments Estimates)."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.)

proposed "That, in the opinion of this House, the provision for Universities is totally inadequate, and none can be regarded as equitable which does not secure for the Catholics of Ireland equally with other members of the community facilities for University education without violence to their religious feelings." It was, he said, seldom that a Motion could be sustained by proofs from all sections of the community and all kinds of religious and political opinions. The mass of evidence was so great that the difficulty was rather in compressing it than in producing it. He was sorry to say, however, that it did not follow from this condition of things that it would be accepted or anything done in connection with it by the present Government. He regretted, therefore, that under the circumstances the ways of the ballot, which, like other things and men, were peculiar, should have given him the duty of opening the discussion. He knew that it could be done more effectively by many of his colleagues. He was consoled, however, by the knowledge that the hon. Member for East Mayo was back with them once again and that he and others would raise the debate to the level that it ought to occupy.

There was a time when he was not greatly enthusiastic about this question of University education. He was concerned more with the foundations of education and thought little of the superstructure or covering. That feeling arose, of course, from the fact that he considered the class in which he was most concerned were touched mainly by primary education, and his desire would be still to make that education, in the interests of the nation, the teachers, and all concerned, as efficient and full as it ought to be, and as it was not. But the truth had long since been borne in upon him that this question of University education was a question for the entire people also, and every month that passed by confirmed that opinion. He had not had the advantages of a University education himself owing to lack of opportunity. But perhaps that made him feel all the more keenly and bitterly the disadvantages suffered by those who were deprived of it. Thousands of his Catholic fellow-countrymen were deprived of it by the utter incapacity of British government in Ireland. If it were true, as it was, that superior education drew a line between those who profited by it and those who were uneducated as marked as that between the living and the dead, then it was clear that higher education in its proper form was something worthy of consideration if they desired to keep their nation alive. He did not put it forward that higher education would secure all ends, because he had a strong view that it changed the size and not the sort of the intellect. The amount of it could never give ability where nature lad not laid the foundations. But just as the rough-hewn steel might possess the qualities necessary for strength and utility, yet skill and training was necessary to enable it to be well used as a heavy hammer or a necessary needle, the skill and training necessary to utilise the intellects of the youth of Ireland were withheld by the methods of the Government in Ireland.

Ireland had education as an ornament in the prosperity of the sixth, seventh, and eight centuries, when, as Dr. Johnson said, she was known as "the school of the West, the habitation of sanctity and learning." British rule in the country, however, killed education, which would have been a refuge in the adversity which followed on it. Some of those who heard this debate, and others who would not listen to the arguments, though they would be ready to vote down the demand, might deny that statement. But it was not so long ago when it was a felony to teach in Ireland. So late as 1901 the Protestant Bishop of Cork prosecuted a Catholic teacher who opened a school in the county. Mr. Porter, in his "Progress of the Nation," told them that the most determined opposition to the system of national education as they styled it, came from the Protestant clergy in 1843. Their policy as to education in Ireland was firstly exclusiveness, then an attempt to denationalise the people by means of a false system, and then pretended reforms under which they opened up Trinity College to Catholics under conditions impossible to their religion and nationality. The people wanted a seat of universal learning, as a University should be, and the Government gave them Trinity College. It was a 2iot-bed of Protestantism and anti-Nationalism.

Minister after Minister had admitted the necessity for reform, but all their efforts had been failures. Disraeli was a failure with his Royal University in 1873 as much as he was in 1868. Mr. Gladstone, in 1873, and in the Home Rule Bill of 1886, tried but without success. Sir M. Hicks Beach, in 1885, told them that "next year something would be done," but the promise never fructified any more than the more definite pledge of the First Lord of the Treasury made in the debate of 1889. Years passed by and a Commission was appointed which reported in 1903, in terms favourable to the demands of the Catholics, but nothing more substantial had yet resulted than the flying of a kite by Lord Dunraven, who, during a portion of the period of office of the late Chief Secretary, constituted himself stage manager of the Irish Government. They all regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, though many of them could never appreciate the double shuffle indulged in between the Member for Dover and the Chief Secretary for Ireland on this and other matters. The result of it all was that the Irish people were deceived and justice denied to them in this most important matter. And that had happened too, although all their Lord-Lieutenants, all their Chief Secretaries, even Mr. Lecky and the Solicitor-General, Members for Trinity College itself, every liberal-minded man in the country, and lastly, their own Prime Minister, had again and again declared that something should be done to meet the legitimate aspirations of Irish Catholics in the matter of University education. How the Prime Minister could reconcile his statements in the debate of 1899, and his speech at Partick in December of that year, in which he said "that we ought to give Catholics a thoroughly equipped College," with his inaction in the matter in all the intervening years, passed comprehension. But he supposed anything was possible to one who viewed with an equable mind the operations of a Birmingham tiger and a Greenwich sleuth-hound, and who did nothing to restrain them in the interests of all the unoffending people near by. When the Prime Minister spoke in 1897, he said he— Was contriving a University that shall meet the approval or be largely used by those classes of the Roman Catholic population who now refuse to take advantage of the existing institution. He begged of them all to lay aside sectarian prejudices, and he expressed the desire to set up either a college or a University for the Catholics of Ireland that would compare favourably with similar institutions on both sides of St. George's Channel. Apparently he was still contriving, still desiring, as he had done nothing in the interval. In the following year's debate he had proof of the united desire of all Parties to do justice to the claims of Irish Catholics. There was complete harmony in the band of Ministers and Members from all sides who spoke in support of the claim, and the harmony was not broken appreciably, because the triangle and trombone in the shape of the Member for Thirsk or one of the Members for Lincolnshire were unable to play the tune.

Need he seek to prove once again the case against Trinity College? It was Protestant and anti-National. Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, speaking within its walls in 1891, a man who was closely connected with the University, said— Their University was founded by Protestants for Protestants and in the Protestant interest. A Protestant spirit had from the first animated the body corporate. At the present moment the guardian spirit of the place was Protestant, and as a Protestant he said, and he said it boldly, Protestant might it evermore remain. The Prime Minister had declared that if it was Catholic as much as it was Protestant, it would be a very dangerous place for Protestants to send their sons to. A similar declaration was made by Dean Jellet at the Tercentenary of the College in 1893. To do justice to Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, however, it should be stated that when making the declaration he had mentioned he also said— That if Trinity were to be made safe from disturbance it should rest on the foundation of justice, and that could only be laid by the State providing for others what Queen Elizabeth and King James provided for that place. The result, therefore, of this condition of Trinity, was that the Catholic people of Ireland, which really meant the Irish nation, were deprived of University education.

The Member for South Derry told them last year that what was wanted was an improvement below the University but above the ordinary school level. Whilst he agreed that such improvement was necessary, he could not at all agree that University facilities were not also required. The statistics in the matter of secondary education in Ireland showed that in the middle grade 277 Catholics won exhibitions and 2,977 passed in the years 1892–1901, while in the case of Protestants, including all other denominations, the numbers were 142 and 1,598, respectively. In the senior grade the Catholics won 110 exhibitions and 1,346 passed, while the Protestants were only eighty-one and 687 respectively. Owing; to present conditions, most of these young Catholics were deprived of a University course. In the Report of the Royal Commission they found that— They (Catholics) have at their command great educational ability, and, in some cases, genuine love of learning. But the destruction of it was effected as far as they were able to do so. The Government wasted thousands on their absurd Queen's Colleges and Royal University, sufficient to effect the change that everyone regarded as necessary. Carlyle once said that— The true University in those days was a collection of books. Though they might doubt the statement they must be thankful that this delay and denial of justice had not closed up all the founts of knowledge to the Irish people. The Government tried to kill their religion, but the days of the golden priests and the wooden chalices were days in which the simple faith of their fathers was indestructibly fixed in the hearts of the Irish people. They tried to kill their nationality, but, though they struck down the people at home by every species of tyranny, like the wild creeping flowers, their children sprang up in every land until they had an Irish nation now whose limits and powers were larger than their own. They tried to destroy the hall-mark of their nationality, but out of its own ashes the Irish language had revived, and the possibilities of the revival were greater than any of them could estimate.

Did they want to have their claim stated once again. Equality was at once its high-water mark and its low-water mark. They wanted what the late Chief Secretary said last year was reasonable— A college coloured by the faith of the majority using it. They asked for no glorified seminary for Catholics alone. They demanded that which, in the next place, perhaps, to self-government alone, would raise up their poor country to their own great advantage and to the loss of no other people—a place the name of which would be associated with liberty, progress, and enlightenment, as well as with Catholic faith and Celtic tradition. Some people laid down the plans on which they might secure it. A few there were who would have them advise entrance to Trinity as the best solution. What would be thought of the wisdom of a general who would lead his troops through a dismal swamp without counting his losses likely to be incurred, the years necessary to cover the way, or the net result when he got to the end. In any case they could not wait for years. The question was too pressing and important and must be pushed. And moreover, though Daniel came unhurt from the lion's den, it did not follow at all that Timothy and James and John and Michael would do so. They wanted that their intellects and religion should be emancipated and given a fair chance. Though justice might be blind for a long time, and wink for a little time, she would at last show the way in which their demands should he met when their merits were conceded. A Committee at present sitting recommended the granting of an additional £100,000 a year to English colleges, and they would get it. A far lesser sum would meet Irish requirements, and they must get it. It was no mere begging matter at all. It was merely restitution for the ruined homes and pillaged shrines of Ireland in the past. The Irish people were adopting the policy of the Bishop of Kerry, who said the other day— Let there be no truckling with persons who have little sympathy with our wants or aspirations. Have confidence in ourselves. If education is to be raised up from the low depths into which it has fallen it will not be any backstairs influence, but by an honest intelligent union amongst ourselves. The modern Irish battle-cry would be "Sinn fein, Sinn fein amain." By adopting that policy they must and would succeed. England framed and endowed Trinity College as an exclusively Protestant institution. Its traditions, governing body, teachers, and all connected with it were Protestant. They must therefore do for the majority what they had done for the minority. In spite of all drawbacks nearly ninety per cent, of the population in Ireland could now read and write. They should make a ladder reaching from the lowest point to the highest University position up which every child should have the power of climbing as far as he could go. They had given a Charter to a University for Catholics in Quebec. Why deny one to the Catholics of Ireland? Conservatives demanded denominational education in England. They denied it to Ireland. On one side they consulted the Church of England in educational matters in this country. On the other side they desired that the Free Churches should also he consulted. But they would not consult or act on the advice of the Catholic Church, which was the Church of Ireland, truly, in educational matters.

Last year it was shown, on the authority of the Archbishop of Dublin, that no reasonable scheme would be refused. This year they wanted to know from the Prime Minister (1.) If after the many promises made by himself and others he now proposed any scheme to meet the legitimate demands of the Irish people. (2.) If not, would he accept a scheme framed by those representing them and take steps to have it carried into operation. (3.) And if no Answer was forthcoming to either of those Questions would he provide an opportunity to enable the House of Commons, independent of Party, to come to a decision on this question? These were simple Questions and they ought to receive a plain Answer to them. When the Moseley Commission was sent to America it was agreed on as a general principle that schools to be effective must be adapted to the particular needs of the community. The English were so proud of their superiority that they desired that circumstances should adapt themselves to them instead of sensibly adapting themselves to circumstances. Ultimately they must do that in this matter as they had had to do in others in Ireland. The other day the President of the United States said— Men of Irish blood are doing their full share towards the artistic and literary development of our country. I hope that an earnest effort will be made in American Universities to endow chairs for the study of Celtic literature and the research in Celtic antiquities. When would they make that earnest effort in Ireland? The world was all gates and opportunities for the educated man, but they closed them all up to Irish men and women as far as they could. Their demand that evening was for the creation of an intellectual headquarters for the faith, the nationality, the language, and the literature of Ireland. They might not receive it now, but it must come. Every necessary effort at reform in Ireland had been again and again repulsed, but finally had had to be recognised. This effort also must be recognised. All through the darkness and sorrow of the past they had been enabled by the strength of hope to follow the kindly light of hope beckoning them onward to the goal. And they would follow it still, confident in the belief that some day it would bring them to a time when the Island of Saints and Scholars would wear the laurel wreath of happiness which the educated intellects of her children would fashion with loving care to place upon her brow.

MR. HAVILAND BURKE (King's County, Tullamore)

said he felt that when his colleagues in the Irish party invited him to second the Resolution so ably moved by his hon. friend, they had conferred upon him an honourable but a great responsibility. And he thought he should best fulfil his task by leaving many arguments and details to his Catholic colleagues far more competent than himself to present them to the House. His position was simply that he supported the Resolution from an absolutely non-Catholic point of view, and with a belief that it would, if carried, remove from the arena of controversy a social grievance and an educational injustice which tended to maintain bad blood between the Protestants and the Catholics in Ireland. He was, he believed, only one of many Protestants in Ireland who were not always talking about their Protestantism, who were not always putting Questions on the Notice Paper of the House with a view to wound She feelings of their Catholic fellow-countrymen; who did not believe in the doctrines or submit to the discipline of the Catholic Church, but who were in no way in sympathy with the Orange Party, and who wanted, on the contrary, to live to see the day when it should be absolutely impossible for an Irish Catholic to be able to say, with any reasonable show of jus- tice, that he was subject to any educational, social, or political disadvantage as compared with his Protestant fellow-countryman. One of the greatest of writers, Thomas Carlyle, once said that we should not be so anxious to see through people as to see out of them—to endeavour to see with their eyes, to hear with their ears, to feel with their feelings in regard to any great public question. That was what he tried to do in regard to the case of the claim for a University for the Catholics of Ireland.

They probably would be told in the course of the debate, what had been said a hundred times over so far as Trinity College was concerned, that there was no actual disability imposed on Irish Catholics; that they were not compelled to attend religious celebrations other than their own, and that the degrees and fellowships were open to them on equal terms with their Protestant fellow-students. If he were living in some country where the people were overwhelmingly Catholic, and the only available University was Catholic, he would have no hesitation in going to it and getting every possible advantage out of it; but if that country were overwhelmingly Protestant, he would consider the Protestants to be labouring under a grave social injustice if they had no University of their own, and were compelled—if they went to a University at all—to attend one in which the Roman Catholic religion was the only religion officially recognised, practised, and taught. Attempts had been made to prejudice discussion by representing the demand for a Catholic University as an artificial grievance worked up by Catholic ecclesiastics for the furtherance of their own designs. He thought that argument very unreasonable and unfair. Surely, if there were no teaching University for Irish Protestants, their Bishops and clergy would be in the vanguard of any movement to secure it. That would be their proper and natural place, and he would think it grossly impertinent for any Catholic to tell him that he did not really want a Protestant University; that he only made speeches and signed petitions for it because he was told to do so by the parsons, and that the Protestant Primate and Bishops merely wanted a new toy to play with, and that the people were merely subservient tools for carrying on an agitation. They had never been secularists in education in Ireland. Irish Protestants themselves had always maintained the importance of the connection between religion and education. If they looked at the long list of secondary schools in Great Britain and Ireland, given in Whittaker's Almanac, they would see that the Protestant clergy had an immense influence in education. In England itself, the headmasterships of all the great public schools were virtually monopolised by the clergy of the Established Church. Was it rational—was it not rather the height of absurdity, to argue as if the Catholic Prelates of Ireland ought to take a back seat in a Catholic University movement? It was absolutely monstrous and unfair, and such an argument in a similar case in this country would not be treated seriously for a moment. All he could say with regard to the prominent part taken by the Catholic Bishops in this matter was that to his mind it was their best defence to the charge made so often, and he thought unjustly, against them that they were what was called obscurantists, that they were medieval, that they had no notion of modern progress. If the Catholic Bishops of Ireland were anxious to close the gates of knowledge against their people, a University, even if absolutely under their own control, would be about the very last thing in the world they would ask for. A University was not a seminary. No rules, however strict, no supervision, however vigilant, could prevent young college men from coming together and discussing the great problems of this world and the next with one another, and of having access to books expressing very conflicting views in matters both of religion and of science; and if the Catholic Bishops asked for a Catholic University it seemed to him that they showed confidence not only in themselves but confidence in their people, and confidence that the Irish faith, which had survived the plunder, the cruelty, and the injustice of centuries, would not be shattered at a blow by the diffusion of modern learning amongst its children.

Some complaints had been made, and some Questions on the Notice Paper seemed to hint, that the Catholics in Ireland were taking the aggressive too much just now and were inclined to carry the war into the enemy's country—that they were inclined in some directions to put up the notice is regarded elective public positions that "no Protestant need apply." He did not believe that any such policy existed on the part of any responsible body of Irish Catholics, lay or ecclesiastical. If it did, he for one honestly could and cast the first stone at them. He could not honestly deny that Catholics in Ireland had received about every provocation that human perversity could possibly inflict. When it was complained that this demand for a Catholic University was a sort of Papal aggression, an attack upon Protestantism by Irish Catholics, he was reminded of the story of the man who knocked his enemy down and was kicking him to death, and yet was shrieking aloud for help the whole time. When asked why he was calling for assistance, the assailant replied, "He is trying to get up, he is trying to get up." In the same way there were some people in Ireland who had so long been cocks of the Orange walk that they were amazed that the Catholic should have the audacity, the sheer impudence, to make any demand of any kind whatever for the furtherance of the religion or education of his own people. He thought that, on the whole, this Catholic demand had been advanced with great dignity and moderation. Of course every cause had its injudicious advocates. It was very possible they might rake up things said or written by Catholics that might have been better left unsaid or unwritten, but Irish Catholicism was not the only cause that suffered at the hands of injudicious advocates. For instance, at the time of the great fight against the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland, one prominent Orangeman said that if her late Majesty gave her assent to that Bill her crown would be kicked into the Boyne. Another prominent Orangeman, he believed he was the Grand Chaplain of the Orange Order, declared at an immense meeting in the Rotunda that the reason why he opposed the disestablishment of the Irish Church was that he honestly and firmly believed that the soul of the Roman Catholic would be everlastingly damned. It was therefore a very dangerous thing to attempt to oppose a cause of any kind by showing that its advocates here and there might not have exhibited the reserve of the trained controversialist.

He proposed to deal with one or two of the stock arguments against the establishment of a Catholic University. First they had what he might call the Oxford argument. They were told that the Catholics in England were allowed to go to Oxford under certain regulations. Why should not the Catholic Church in Ireland make similar arrangements whereby its sons could go to Trinity College? He wished to point out that Oxford was not a centre of anti-Catholic activity. The heads of Oxford University did not publish ferocious anti-Catholic poetry in college magazines. Oxford was not the centre of perennial political intrigue against the religion or the political aspirations of its Catholic students. In England, Catholics were not a big majority as in Ireland, but were a small minority, and they could go to Oxford without the slightest loss of personal dignity. Then they were told, and it sounded very plausible at first, that if the Irish Catholic Bishops were to assent to a certain number of picked Catholic young men entering their names on the books of Trinity College every year, in the course of time the Catholics would not only enjoy a position of great power in Trinity College, but possibly a position of equality and even of numerical predominance within its walls. But it was only fair that they should realise the fact that an Irish Catholic Bishop did not occupy the position of a general who in the crisis of some great battle resolved to sacrifice thousands of his best troops in order capture a vitally important position. The position of the Catholic Bishops was that not for all the honours and emoluments of Trinity College should the faith of the humblest Catholic lad in the whole of Ireland be imperilled. If they knew that at the end of ten years they would have Trinity College in the hollow of their hand they were not entitled from their own point of view to run the risk of one Catholic lad having his faith weakened within its walls.

There was another reason upon which he based his support of this Resolution. He thought monopoly was in itself a bad thing, and Trinity College had a monopoly in the matter of University education in Ireland. It would be a good rather than a bad thing for Trinity College itself that it should be roused from its educational slumbers. With the competition of a good University, not closed against Protestants if they chose to avail themselves of its opportunities, he thought that the whole system of education in Trinity College would be brought more up to date, more up to modern needs, and that it would be more of a teaching University in the true sense of the word, and less of what it threatened to become—a factory for the manufacture of parsons. It was notorious that the numbers of students on the books of Trinity College had been dwindling for years past. The Irish Protestant landed gentry very largely boycotted Trinity College, and the son of an Irish Peer at that College was about as rare as a white blackbird. There was not one now on the books. In addition to all this, Trinity College had made itself impossible for a man holding strong Nationalist convictions. It was little better in Ireland than a standing committee for the Unionist Party. It was a centre of intrigue against everything that was Catholic and Nationalist in the country. It had not even justified the theory of University representation—the theory that specially enlightened communities should have specially enlightened representatives in that House. With very few exceptions, what had the representation of Trinity College come to? It was the appanage of members of the legal profession bitterly opposed to the majority of the Irish people, and who wanted a seat in Parliament as an ante-chamber to a seat on the Bench. During a recent Parliamentary contest for Trinity College the bitter remark was made by its respected and beloved Regius Professor of Divinity, Dr. Gwynn, that its Members of Parliament were too often little better than King William's statue on College Green, with their backs turned to the college and their faces to the Castle. He would not quote from the speeches of politicians on this subject, for the modern politician had an aptitude for eating his own words with a relish just as he would eat his dinner. But he would like to refer to a speech made by Lady Londonderry in opening some Church schools at Sunderland. Lady Londonderry on that occasion said the reason for Church schools was that religion and education might be intertwined; that knowledge must be the handmaiden of faith; and that godless knowledge was very dangerous and likely to do more harm than good to its possessor. What struck him as being very strange was that while Lady Londonderry was saying that in Sunderland, her noble husband should be opposed to Catholic University education in Ireland.

He would not dwell on the way in which Catholic education had for generations been starved. He would not dwell on the awful period when it was a criminal offence for one Roman Catholic to teach another. If he did, he might be told that he was talking ancient history. But he would say with regard to that, though a man might live till he was a hundred years of age his life was but a day in the history of a nation. When one country ground down another, as England had ground down Ireland, the evil was not remedied at the moment when some of the chains were struck off. It had been truly written that the sins of the fathers should be visited on the children. The evil done by one generation took many generations to repair. Catholic Emancipation was not an atonement to Ireland. It was no more than the preface to an atonement. On these grounds he supported the Resolution. He was not afraid to let the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland have a University of their own maintained by the State. They were as much entitled to that as Trinity College was to the plunder it got from the Catholic acres of Ireland. He believed that the Catholic intellect of the country if only given a fair chance would, before long, under are extended system of education, bring back he days when the learning of Ireland was the glory and the pride of Christendom.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the words from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, the provision for Universities is totally inadequate, and none can be regarded as equitable which doss not secure for the Catholics of Ireland, equally with other members of the community, facilities for University education without violence to their religious feeling.'—(Mr. Murphy)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. J. F. HOPE (Sheffield Brightside)

said he thought this was a question in which perhaps more than in any other there was a great misuse of terms. It was always referred to outside as the Irish Roman Catholic question. That was an utterly wrong conception of the facts. When one spoke of a Roman Catholic University one would naturally understand it to be a University in which there was a religious test, and in which the Roman Catholic hierarchy had some ex officio right, as in the Catholic University of Quebec, or of Freiburg in Switzerland. But that was not the case here, and they were prepared to accept the declarations of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland who in 1897 said that the majority of the governing body were to be laymen, and that there was to be no religious test. What was there in such a University that could by any possibility do any harm? It was said in Ireland that the Irish Unionists opposed this demand for a new University because they wished to keep for themselves the monopoly of appointments for which their better education qualified them. His Unionist friends, he knew, repudiated that, and their opposition could not be based on their objection to an endowment being given to an educational institution of a denominational character, and therefore, he could only assume that their opposition was due to the fact that it was thought that the creation of such a University would provide machinery or an organisation which the hierarchy of Ireland would use to their own advantage. But if there was any danger at all in the creation of this University it would be in quite a different direction. When once they set higher education going they could not stop it. His personal conviction was that no one had anything to fear, although he could quite imagine that the old-fashioned or more conservative among the clergy might fear certain results from such a University. But clearly, if the clergy themselves by their official utterances said they were not afraid of a self-governed University, surely no one else need be.

He quite admitted that if Trinity College were an English University, and the conditions were English conditions, some arrangement might, no doubt, be made, just as it had been in England; but the circumstances were entirely different in England, for the reason that our historic memories were not so vivid as they were in Ireland. Here our actions in the present were not so influenced by our visions of the past. In Ireland memories were much more vivid, and the circumstances which gave rise to them more recent, because, after all, it was only 107 years since the struggle in 1798, which gave rise to many bitter memories. But there was another reason for this, which was, that there was a complication not only of religion but of race. He was convinced the difference of race was stronger to disintegrate people than religion to keep them together. That was seen in Germany and Austria. In Germany, where there was great religious difficulty, higher education went on without difficulty. In Austria, where, speaking roughly, there were no religious difficulties, the racial differences were of the acutest possible description, and they showed themselves, above all things, in the matter of higher education. He did not wish to minimise the religious difficulties, but altogether apart from religion he did not think Irishmen as a whole could be expected to accept Trinity College, seeing that it was a kind of historic embodiment of all to which they felt the utmost aversion.

Higher education all round in Ireland was admittedly defective. Quite recently in connection with an important appointment in the statistical branch of the Department of Agriculture it was found impossible to obtain an Irishman with the necessary qualifications and a Scotchman was appointed. ["Oh."] Sir Horace Plunkett was, above all things, a patriotic Irishman, and would certainly not have gone elsewhere if he could have found a qualified Irishman. The whole status of higher education in Ireland must suffer unless this side was recognised, as it would be impossible to set up a fully equipped University in Belfast while the wishes of the great majority in the West and South were ignored. He regretted that the question had been brought forward in its present form, as the vote taken would not in any way represent the true opinion of the House. Hon. Members opposite might have either brought forward a Motion on a private Members' night, or introduced a Bill; and even now he hoped the matter would be raised in such a form that technical difficulties would not prevent a true expression of opinion.

It was frequently said that no English Government had anything to gain by making this concession, as no gratitude would be shown for it. He protested against political action in matters of such importance being based on the expectation of favours to come. The Government had received no gratitude for passing the Irish Local Government Act, but that did not alter the fact that it was a right and proper thing to do. The recent Land Act would not affect the Home Rule question in the present generation, but nevertheless it was a great measure, redounding to the credit of the Government and the late Chief Secretary. Similar instance might he quoted in regard to England. The clause dealing with the pupil teacher question, inserted in the Education Act by the Prime Minister, would probably not secure to the Government a single vote, but, for all that, it was designed to deal with an admitted hardship under which Nonconformists laboured, and it was right that action should have been taken. The only principle that could be recognised in the matter was to do the right thing and leave gratitude out of the question. He felt strongly on this subject, because they who maintained the Union most fervently alleged the English Government could under the Union solve the problems of Ireland, and they pointed to the instances he had named as bearing out that view. But here was an exception. The Union had failed to grapple with the question of higher education in Ireland. Until that problem had been settled, and settled under the Union, a special responsibility devolved upon Unionists, and they had to admit that there was a special work as yet undone. He trusted his hon. friends would consider this question upon its merits, altogether apart from what they thought were the aims or manœuvres of hon. Members opposite and the turmoil of Party politics. If they did so he believed they would be forced to the conclusion that there was a real want in the government of Ireland which it was time they set to work to supply.

MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)

said it was impossible to take part in this debate without a sense of sadness. Year after year the question had been debated, but nothing had come of it. The Unionist Party had been in power for ten years, with unrivalled majorities, resources, and opportunities, and yet in a most pressing question—probably the most pressing question at this moment affecting Ireland—not one step in advance had been made. It was not because many Members opposite did not sympathise with the sentiments which the hon. Member for the Brightside Division had just expressed. For many years the Prime Minister himself had been deeply interested in the question, and only six years ago he wrote to his constitutents— I hope so as a Unionist, because I know not how to claim for a British Parliament that it can do for Ireland all and more than all that Ireland can do for itself. Last night the Party opposite showed no sign of sympathy with any suggestion of handing over to the Irish people the control of questions which concerned them most closely, and yet here was a burning and urgent question which they would neither deal with themselves nor allow the Irish people to settle. That was a deplorable state of things for the British Parliament. Many Members on either side of the House would be in keen sympathy with the desire to do something substantial for the reform of higher education in Ireland; the blame for nothing having been done could not be laid solely on the Party opposite. The shadow of religious bigotry had played on both sides of the House; in both Parties there were men who could not look at this question as a whole, but whose vision was distorted, and whose way of looking at things was coloured by prejudice derived from religious convictions which, although entitled to respect, could not be allowed to dominate the chances of those whose consciences led them in a different direction. He wished to put a point of view which, if steadily held to, would enable this question to be dealt with free from much of the disadvantage from which it had suffered through being treated as a religious question.

There had been considerable misuse of terms. It was deplorable that the matter should have been discussed as a question of a Catholic University. The question which had to be faced was that of higher education in Ireland, and it would have been infinitely better to have spoken of it as such. The task of Parliament was to solve the problem by giving Ireland the higher education she required without offending the conscience of anybody, whether Catholic or Protestant. The present condition of education, whether primary, secondary, or University, was deplorable. There had recently been two Reports on the subject. One was the Report of a Royal Commission—in many respects the most unsatisfactory Report he had ever seen, because nearly every signatory made an addendum dissenting from the Report that he had signed. The Report was of value, however, in that it brought out the strength and reality of the feeling which existed in favour of the redress of the grievance; and supplied a mass of material which previously had not been available in a collected form. The other Report was that of Mr. Dale, an English inspector sent over to investigate the condition of elementary education in Ireland, and to show the relative positions in the two countries. That Report revealed a deplorable state of things. The attendance in primary- schools was 20 per cent. less than in England or Scotland; the influence of higher education in the training of primary teachers was almost absent; and there was a general condition of confusion and chaos. The only conclusion to be drawn was that education, whether general or University, in Ireland was thirty years behind anything we had in this country. With technical education they had the same state of things staring them in the face.

The Government had placed upon the Estimates for education of a University type in England and Wales something like £168,000, and that was more by £50,000 as the result of the Report of a Committee upon this question. In Scotland the State spent something like £43,000, but in Ireland the amount was not more than £32,000. With regard to resources, within the past ten years six new Universities had been added in England, at Birmingham, London, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield. Scotland had four Universities, one to every million of the population, but Scotland enjoyed great advantages through the liberality of a private individual, Mr. Carnegie, who had given the interest upon £2,000,000 to be applied for the maintenance and development of Scottish Universities. Let them contrast this with the state of things in Ireland. Whereas they had done everything they could within the last few years to improve University teaching on this side of St. George's Channel, in Ireland they had done practically nothing. They had in Ireland one single teaching University in Dublin. This University had honourable traditions and he should be the last person to injure or destroy it in any way. One had only to look at the figures of the students to show that it was not prosperous; and the number of students was not increasing at the rate which one would expect from an institution with such honourable and distinguished traditions. In 1881 there were 1,338 students at Trinity College, Dublin, of whom seventy-four were Catholics; in 1891, 1,162, of whom seventy-six were Catholics; and in 1901 the total was 976, of whom seventy-three were Catholics. In the condition of things it was evident that even in the case of this one University things were not prospering for higher education in Ireland. There were the three Queen's Colleges, in Cork, Belfast, and Galway. Were they prospering? These colleges were also going down in regard to the number of their students. In 1882 the number of students attending Queen's College, Belfast, was 567; but in 1902 the number had fallen to 319. At Queen's College, Cork, in 1882 the total was 402, and in 1902 they fell to 190; whilst at Galway in 1882 the total was 201, and in 1902 there were only ninety-three students at that college. Altogether these figures represented a drop from 1,170 students in 1882 to 632 in 1902. From these figures it was obvious that things were not going well even with the existing resources for higher education in Ireland. The Royal University of Ireland was merely an examining Board. True there were certain fellowships under an arrangement for the benefit of an institution which had been struggling under immense disadvantages—he meant the Catholic University College in Dublin, a body which had fought under immense disadvantages and had nevertheless been able to keep its feet. Education of a University type in Ireland was deplorable in comparison with what they possessed in England and Scotland. Hope long deferred seemed to have a sickening effect, because they had a specimen of this in the gradual drop in the number of students at the Queen's Colleges, and at the University of Dublin. That suggested that it was urgently necessary that this question should be energetically dealt with, but he felt confident that they would make no progress with it so long as they simply discussed Catholic grievances.

He thought the best way of treating the question for Ireland was to deal with it as an educational question. He thought he had said enough to make good his point that on educational grounds alone this was an urgent problem. Those who knew Ireland best knew the great want of facilities for higher education. A large part of the present facilities were for the education of priests. This system produced amongst the population of Ireland a concentration of the higher education in the persons of the priests, and, if that were so, then almost inevitably the laity became separated intellectually from the level of the priesthood. The difficulty went further. If there was one thing more than another which they ought to do in Ireland it was to induce the people who held the religion of the great majority of the people, and who also held their political opinions, to take their part in the administrative work of the country, and encourage them to play a leading part in carrying on the affairs of the State, which must be administered no matter what Government was in power and even if there was no Government at all. And yet these people were shut out from competing for those positions with their more fortunate fellow subjects. This was the inevitable result. A young man commenced his education in a primary school from which he passed on to the secondary education and then his career was barred because there was no University life to carry him further, and no prizes to lift him into a position in which the posts at the disposal of the State would be open to him. In this way they had produced in Ireland an amount of discontent among the young men such as was without parallel in any part of the kingdom. That was one great grievance.

It might be said that these grievances were not disputed but that they could not be dealt with. He held that they could be dealt with. There had been a plain policy before the country associated, with the personal views of the Prime Minister, and if they were in earnest on both sides of the House it was possible to grapple with the existing educational difficulty in Ireland. It was not enough to leave Ireland with a single teaching University. Statesmen had often suffered from rash attempts to meddle with that body. After a careful study of this question the advice he would give to any English statesmen who talked of meddling with Trinity College, and improving it to form the National University, was that he should keep his hands off it. It was like the Ark of the Covenant, and any English statesman that laid his hands thereon would surely perish. The history of the attempts which had been made in the past clearly proved that. Trinity College was like the great Universities of this country, for it possessed a history, and he preferred to preserve it with its great traditions and the great names associated with it, and if possible increase its strength, and let it serve those who required its services most. It was not a Catholic college and never would be, because its history had stamped it too much with other associations. It was not a poor man's college and never would be, because it was wanted by the class of people who went to the older Universities in this country and he did not want to disturb that state of things. What they did want was a University life of the type they had been accustomed to in Scotland and which was now growing up in the great Universities in England which had been called into being within the last ten years, and which were accessible to the sons of the poorer classes if they were found to possess sufficient talent.

Was it beyond the wit of man to devise a plan to bring that about? He did not think they would find any real jealousy on the part of Protestants if they showed that they were treating Catholics and Protestants with an absolutely even hand, and with even justice, and that in any case they were creating a University which was not stamped with the hall-mark of any denomination. With regard to the Maynooth resolutions in 1897, they provided that no State money should be devoted to religious teaching, that there should be security against the dismissal of teachers, and that there should be a majority of laymen upon the governing body. He was one of those who thought that the priesthood desired to get as much power as they could in shaping the University, but it was their business not to give them all that they desired in this respect, but simply to give them what was necessary in the interests of education without offending their susceptibilities. He had spoken with many distinguished Irish Catholics upon this question and what they really objected to was that Irish Catholics were not in a Catholic atmosphere at Trinity College, which was a Protestant University. It seemed to him that what was dreaded was that they would find themselves in an atmosphere which was hostile to the religion in which they had been brought up. He did not believe that in Ireland any real opposition would be found to University training which was undenominational, if there was something of a guarantee that the atmosphere of the University should be such as not to threaten the convictions of the students who went there. They dreaded more than anything else the influence which University teaching might have on religious conviction. That was nothing new. He knew many strong dissenters who refused to send their sons to the English Universities for fear the atmosphere should lead them in the way of Anglicanism. He thought these convictions were carried a great deal too far, and that they had done a great deal of mischief in the past. Surely it was not beyond their power to found an open University—open not only in the sense of conforming to the resolutions of Maynooth, but in the way of providing the best lay education that could be found in Ireland—and so to select the governing body that there should be a negative assurance that there should not be an atmosphere hurtful in the way of direct aggression on the convictions or early training of those who were sent there.

He did not think it was enough to make cue University of that kind. Nothing more disappointed him in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1903 than the declaration that Belfast did not want a University in the North of Ireland. He did not believe that. In Belfast he had talked with a good many highly interested people, and he could never find that that conviction existed. Things of that kind had been said, but always under cover of the belief that the proposal was to endow the Roman Catholics of Ireland. If one went to Belfast, a city teeming with wealth and activity, where the desire for learning was felt among the people, he would find—and he spoke from experience—the keenest desire that they should be redeemed from the reflection that a great city like theirs should be without any University life. The University had to be fashioned on a modern pattern, free from the stamp of religious bigotry, and to be made big enough; and if founded on those lines they would find that the people of Belfast would welcome it, just as a University would be welcomed in the South. It was not beyond the wit of man to establish two open Universities, one in Belfast and the other in Dublin, managed in the main by laymen, and free as far as possible from denominational taint, care being taken in the appointment of the governing body that there should be nothing of that aggressive atmosphere which those who were responsible for the religious training of the young men of Ireland feared in University teaching in that country. That was no new policy. It had been discussed for many years past. It was associated with some of the earlier utterances of the Prime Minister.

He could not but fear that they had reached a stage at which, unless they did something of the kind, this question of Irish University education would remain unsolved for as long in the future as it had remained unsolved in the past. They would reach a stage when it would form the strongest argument for Home Rule. It was surely only by placing this question on the highest educational basis that they could secure the support of the majority of the people which was necessary if such a scheme was to be carried. Let them eliminate from their debates this evil dream of Catholic University education. Let them put before Parliament as their policy that they were seeking to establish in Ireland the highest education for the benefit both of Catholic and Protestant. It might be undenominationalism, but in Ireland it must mean, and could only mean, the equal treatment of denominations. They could at least by equal treatment in such a fashion secure that the University would not be hall-marked as in any way representing on the one hand a priest-ridden Party, or, on the other hand, the dogmas of Protestantism. He did feel it was desirable that they should try to deal with this question so far as possible on non-Partyy lines. He blamed the Conservative Party for not dealing with it for, he thought, they had had an easier time than those on his side of the House were likely to have. He thought that, on his side of the House also there was room for blame. This was not a matter for Party recriminations. They should try to deal with this question in an enlightened fashion and on broad national lines, not as affecting Ireland alone, but as something affecting the well-being of the United Kingdom as a hole. He called it nothing short of a menace to the State that higher education in Ireland should be allowed to remain as it was at the present time. It was in the hope that they might come to a new state of things in which they would discuss education for education's sake, and no longer as a branch of religious controversy, that he had taken part in this debate.

MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

said he had heard this question debated several times in the House, but he did not think he had ever heard anything to equal the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he had found out a new remedy for this great and troublesome question. According to him they were no longer to call it a question of a Catholic University. They were to speak of the "problem of higher education in Ireland." He was quite willing to accept that view of the question if their Nationalist friends would do the same, and not place it on the basis of denomination. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman would find very small support from the Nationalist Members. The hon. Member who moved the Motion made a fair and moderate speech. He said what was wanted was a University not for Catholics as Catholics but for Irishmen as Irishmen. If the hon. Member had stopped there he should have been perfectly satisfied. When a University of that kind was given to Ireland it was banned after a few years by the representatives of the Catholic hierarchy, because they could not have the control they sought to have. He did not care whether they put control in the hands of Roman Catholic laymen or Roman Catholic prelates, and prelates were not in the position of a Protestant Bishop or Archbishop. No Protestant prelate ever dared to arrogate to himself such power as to say through his layman representing the official religion of the University, "This involves a question of faith and morals. I say that the people of my flock are to take their religion from me and that they shall stay away and leave your schoolrooms empty." That meant that the control must be centre in the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The Unionists in Ireland objected on principle to State aid being given in connection with religion to any University He, as an Irishman, was willing that every Roman Catholic layman should have his fair share of educational advantages in Ireland, and his fair share of educational control, but he was not willing that the University education of Ireland should be placed directly or indirectly under the control of any denominational heirarchy—he did not care what it was.

They were asked what was the objection of Unionists in Ireland to this measure. First, they said in principle there should be no State aid given to a religion in connection with any University. Next, they said no University should be founded upon denominational lines, and for any one denomination more than another. He accepted what the right hon. Gentle man opposite said, that it should be for all Parties. Those were the views which those who sent him held in reference to education. He knew something of the North of Ireland, and he could tell the right hon. Gentleman that even his great intuitive powers had failed him when he came in conflict with the Report of the Royal Commission. He said he had visited Belfast and had come to the opposite conclusion with regard to local wishes. The Belfast people were too wise in their generation. They knew that a small denominational University would carry no weight. They wanted a hall-mark for their young men which would be recognised as the stamp of education in the man. England, with its vast industrial population increasing in numbers, had six Universities. Its large centres wanted a modern type of University to give them something, slightly different from what they got in the higher and technical schools. This was quite apart from any class of population in Ireland. Belfast was building a large technical school and would have its educational requirements met so far as higher and technical education were concerned; but they desired that their University education should not be limited to the students sent into Queen's College, but should have a larger basis, and that, if possible, all Ireland should be brought into one University and get its degree from one institution. They felt that everything that widened the area from which the students were drawn would give additional weight to the degrees conferred. Scotland had four Universities, and there was no country in the world where University education was held so high, and where the desire to obtain it so pervaded every class.

What were they to say to the facts adduced to bring them to the conclusion that they should have three Universities in Ireland. The right hon. Gentlemen said leave Dublin University alone; start a University for the North of Ireland at Belfast, and another for the South at Cork. What were the figures he gave to support this proposal. The University of Dublin, which was to be left alone, had dwindled in numbers from 1,300 to 900 in twenty years, and that in spite of a very large increase in Presbyterian students. He did not want to say too much in favour of Trinity College. He had not hesitated to say it had a great deal to answer for with regard to the position of University education in Ireland. He thought if it had been more liberal in its views, and had been governed on a more liberal basis, it could have done a good deal of itself to solve the question. They could not help that, however; they had to deal with existing facts. Take Belfast. The right hon. Gentleman said they had a decreasing number of students in the Queen's College, although the population was growing enormously. In Cork and Galway, also, the number was diminishing, and yet they were to come to the conclusion that they ought to set up two new Universities in Ireland. The class of people for whom Queen's College, Belfast, was founded, had never said they wanted a University, and were they to be told now in the same breath that the numbers were diminishing and that they must start a new University? The right hon. Gentleman said, "Do not talk about any Rom in Catholic atmosphere, or any Presbyterian dogmas, or Episcopalian atmosphere, but get University education for Ireland." If he could persuade the Nationalists to accept that he would not have much diffi- culty in getting the people of Ireland to come to the House for money for Universities. But that was not what was wanted. It would not satisfy the requirements of hon. Members opposite.

Now, what were the true facts of the matter? The Amendment spoke of violence to the religious feelings of Catholics, but though he had listened to everything said on the other side he had heard nothing in the nature of any evidence adduced that there was violence to Catholic feeling in any of the existing Universities or colleges in Ireland. Because the managing body of a University, formed from its graduates, happened to be Protestant, and though they had now put the institution on the broadest basis, and had offered to the Roman Catholics of the country the right to built a chapel within its walls for their religious purposes, if they would come in, could it be said that violence was done to the religious feelings of Catholics? They should look at the question as practical men, and not from the sentimental point of view, and it would be found that there was no disability any Roman Catholic suffered from that did not apply equally to Presbyterians or Episcopalians. The fact was these colleges were banned because they could not be controlled by one section of the community. They were told by hon. Gentlemen that they had got in Ireland a purely denominational primary education; but the basis of primary education in Ireland, so far as the House of Commons could make it, was on non-sectarian and non-denominational lines. And it was the duty of the House of Commons to see that any new University set up should be put upon a basis in which no favour was shown to any one denomination. The very thing that was being done was the getting rid of the denominational system, and yet the British House of Commons was asked to establish a new University with an official religion. Certainly that would be a retrograde step and going in a different way from the course which had been adopted in connection with Great Britain. He thought that the British House of Commons ought never in any way—either by vote, or enactment—to show its sanction or sympathy to any such course.

It had been frequently said that this course had the sympathy of the Prime Minister. He had always understood that the right hon. Gentleman's views were that it was a matter of expediency and not a matter in which he considered it was right or logical or proper to establish denominational colleges in the Universities. He thought it was a great mistake to press this matter now, when there was something better to be done in a few years. So far as he was concerned, and so far as those whom he represented were concerned, they entirely dissociated themselves from the idea of having any separate denominational University either for themselves or anyone else. They dissociated themselves from the idea of being parties to any unfair treatment of any of their fellow-subjects in Ireland. They were perfectly willing to stand on the same footing with regard to University education, and they objected to anyone being put in a different or worst position.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said that for thirty years every Chief Secretary who had been sent from this House to govern Ireland had been a supporter of the claims of Catholics in this matter with the possible exception, he thought, of Mr. Jackson, whose views on Ireland no one could ever ascertain. It was not unnatural, especially after the emphatic declaration to which he gave utterance in the House on Tuesday last, that they were anxious to know the views of the new Chief Secretary on this question of a Catholic University. He thought it was rather a sinister fact that although this debate had been put down for that date at long notice, and must have been known to the right hon. Gentleman ever since he was appointed, he had taken that opportunity of absenting himself form the House, and all the more strange was it that his absence was for the purpose of paying a visit to Lord Londonderry, and that at an early date he was to address a select representation of the Orangemen of Ireland under the patronage of Lord Londonderry, who was a recognised leader of a small bigoted gang of men in the North of Ireland, who for many years had successfully blocked this question. It was rather a sinister omen for Irishmen what had fought in this matter for twenty-five years, as to the prospect of a settlement of the question so long as the right hon. Gentleman remained in office.

This question, it seemed to him, was one the importance of which was not recognised in the House. He had spoken at intervals for many years on it, and he remembered that a quarter of a century ago definite pledges were given from the then leaders of the Tory Party that the question would be settled in the following year. In has opinion there was no question of greater importance to the well-being of Ireland than this question of University education. He did not believe there was any grievance which had inflicted a deadlier wound upon the Irish nation than the denial to the people of access to higher education. He had always held that they could not have in any country a proper system of education, primary or secondary, unless they had a proper system of University and higher education. Some people held the view that they should begin at the bottom and then re up a structure. He held a totally different view, namely, that the true foundation of a proper system of education was to make provision for the higher education of the people, and that they could not have effective primary or secondary education until the higher education of the people was properly provided for.

Allusion had been made to the Royal Commission which commenced its labours in 1901. Although that Report had been treated with the utmost possible contempt, and appeared never to have engaged the attention of the Government for a moment, it was really a valuable and instructive document. As to the bearing of University education on the other branches of the education of the people the Royal Commission said that every year more than 300 primary school teachers were sent out by the training colleges in Dublin and Belfast, and that, with facilities such as were provided in Wales, at least 100 of them might obtain the advantages of a University training. Further, the Report said that a large part of the teaching in literary and scientific subjects at present given the training colleges might be undertaken much more fruitfully by a University college. He entirely agreed with that view. No language was too strong to describe the condition of education in Ireland. The primary and secondary schools were in a retrograde condition. There was a lack of co-ordination throughout the whole educational system of the country, which had inflicted a deadly wound, and was like a consumption throughout the whole structure of society in Ireland. In Ireland more than in any other civilized country there was necessity for co-ordination on account of the arrears in education and the great poverty of the people.

As to technical education, they had an enormous sum of money set aside for a college in Dublin, from which they were promised great things, and they had an elaborate and wasteful system of inspectors and instructors. Never was there inflicted upon an unfortunate and poverty-stricken country a greater fraud than the whole of this system. Not that he did not approve of technical instruction, or believe it was necessary in Ireland, but he considered they had commenced at the wrong end, and that, instead of beginning by reforming the ordinary system of instruction in the country, they had squandered untold sums on this system of technical education, which could never be got to work properly until they had got the other system into working order. The Irish people were in great danger of having inflicted upon them the very worst form of Socialism by being trained in sham science and technical education when there was no proper foundation of ordinary education on which to build the other structure. He knew of no more contemptible persons than the class of men with whom they were familar in Ireland who had a small smattering of practical science. There was a great danger that these men, who went round the country, would demoralise the whole country, and really they were doing their best to uproot that healthy and glorious love of true knowledge which had always been characteristic of the Irish race. He desired to say a word for that unfortunate individual, the uneducated man, who could neither read nor write and was condemned on all sides. He had met amongst his countrymen in America and Ireland those who could not read but who were far better educated men than many of the instructors who were going about Ireland. In the company of the men he had mentioned he would rather spend his time, and from them he could get instruction which could not be obtained from these instructors.

Instead of progressing, Ireland was going back in education, and was in danger of getting worse from year to year. When the question of Irish education was discussed on April 18th last year, the late Chief Secretary said that the Government could not allow a new disparity to be made between England and Ireland in respect of education, and that although the difficulties were great it was the duty of Parliament to get over or round them or in some way get beyond them so as to prevent new disabilities on the rising generation of a country for whose welfare they held themselves constitutionally responsible. In the first week of this session he asked the Chief Secretary whether the Government proposed to introduce any legislation this year dealing with the question of Irish education in any branch. The Answer of the late Chief Secretary was "No, Sir." That was the kind of treatment to which they had been subjected year after year. The loyal crowd which ruled Ireland had gone. They took no interest in education. It was a subject that did not interest the Orange Party. He would dispose if he could of the false statement, repeated ad nauseam in this I country, that what they wanted was to control the University. He noticed that a most respectable Unionist paper in this country which for twenty years had supported their demand for a University did not even seem to appreciate the position. The Spectator said they believed and had always believed that what the Irish demanded as best for themselves, namely, a University controlled by ecclesiastics, was the worst thing they could have, but as they had asked for it they ought to have it. But they never did demand it and would not be willing to accept it. Was it not amazing that this statement was repeated not by their enemies, but by a Unionist paper which had supported their demands for twenty years. They had never demanded nor did they demand now a University which was to be controlled by ecclesiastics. The present situation was that the Government had forced upon them a University College, miserably endowed no doubt, but which was kept up by £6,000 a year of the State's money, which was absolutely controlled by ecclesiastics, for, while the Government said they could not have a free University maintained by State money, it compelled them to accept a University governed by a Jesuit. Father Delaney, who appeared as a witness before the Royal Commission, and who was one of the ablest men in Ireland, and who gave his evidence exceedingly frankly, said— University College, Dublin, is a Royal College under the management of the Jesuit Order. and then the Report went on— The government of the college is entirely in the hands of the president, who is a member of the Jesuit Order. Appointments for the teaching staff of the college are male by him, and the tenure of office of the professors and other officers is governed by whatever rules he may think it desirable to make. Was that their idea of a free University. Why did they vote money for that and then have the consummate hypocrisy to tell the Irish people they wanted a University controlled by ecclesiastics? Was it not hard for Irishmen to have patience when treated in such a way as this? The professors of this college were paid £600 annually, and six of those gentlemen gave up all their salary to the college to enable it to buy coals and to pay its rent. The only University Ireland had been able to obtain from the English Parliament was one under the absolute control of a Jesuit priest. The truth of the matter was that the whole of the Government of Ireland was saturated with hypocrisy and make-believe.

They had heard from the hon. Member for South Derry that primary education for Ireland was set up as a purely sectarian system by Parliament and was to give education to all religious denominations. That was the system originally set up by this Parliament, but when it crossed the Channel it was found to be impossible and it was abandoned, and they adopted the only system that would be tolerated, yet they now said they could not give the money for a college where there was any restraint on the freedom of the teaching that went on. The ignorance of this country upon this subject was simply amazing. The great argument used was that they could not vote money for a University controlled by ecclesiastics, but they voted money every year to great free institutions like the Queen's Colleges of Ireland. Every professor who went into a Queen's College had to sign the following declaration— I, A. B., do hereby promise to the President and Council of Queen's College that I will faithfully and to the best of my ability discharge the duties of professor of in the said college, and I further promise and engage that in lecturing and examining and in the performances of all other duties connected with my Chair I will carefully abstain from teaching or advancing any doctrine or making any statement derogatory to the truths of revealed religion or injurious or disrespectful to the religious convictions of any portion of my class or audience. And I moreover promise to the President and Council that I will not introduce or discuss in my place or capacity of professor any subject of controversy, political or religious, tending to produce contention or excitement nor will I engage in any avocation which the Council shall judge inconsistent with my office, but will as far as in me lies promote on all occasions the interests of education and the welfare of the college. It was right to point out that the last official statement of the Bishops issued in 1897 did not insist on the strict denominationalism formerly demanded. The Bishops therein declared their readiness to accept the Test Acts and to open the emoluments of the institutions to all comers. They also accepted the principle that laymen should preponderate on the governing body. And they also accepted the principle that the freedom of the professors in their teaching was to be safeguarded by an independent body of visitors. Surely that was not an ecclesiastically-governed University. Taking the demands and resolutions of the Bishops themselves it was a gross mis-statement to say that they wanted an ecclesiastically-governed University. What did the laity demand? This was not, as hon. Members and the Government had all along tried to show, a matter between themselves and the Catholic Bishops. The question mainly concerned the Catholic laity of Ireland, and the laity had a right to be heard. In the debate of 1898, Mr. Courtney, who might fairly be taken as a leading champion of undenominational education, declared that he would be quite prepared to grant the Nationalist demand if they would accept a democratically-governed University in which the governing body was recruited from the graduates. In December last he read the speech at a meeting in Dublin of a new society of Catholic graduates and undergraduates, and stated that as a Catholic layman he was prepared to accept and support such a scheme, giving the Bishops, if they chose, a small representation de jure on the board. No objection had been raised by any leading Catholic layman to that view, and he now asked whether the House of Commons was prepared to refuse such a University?

They were not without experience as to the working of such a scheme and the attitude of the Bishops to it. Nothing was more interesting in the history of education in Ireland than the career and present position of the Catholic University School of Medicine in Dublin. When after many years that School of Medicine, having been boycotted by the Government and refused power to grant degrees, came to the end of its resources, and could no longer keep its doors open, the Bishops handed over the arts faculty to the Jesuits, and set up the Catholic School of Medicine as an independent body. They applied to the Commissioners of Education for statutory power to frame a constitution. A very liberal constitution was drawn up; the school was governed by four ex officio members, two being deans in residence and two Bishops; six members were elected by the faculty, and four were appointed by the Bishops from among the Catholic doctors of Dublin. How had that system worked? The ex officio Bishops hardly ever went near the place, and the government of the school had practically passed into the hands of the faculty, who appointed the teachers and controlled the teaching. Without endowment or recognition by the Government that school was to-day admittedly the best medical school in Ireland. In the face of such an example of liberality, was it not monstrous that Irish young men should be blindly refused University education because Parliament was dominated by outworn prejudices and false catch cries, which had been handed down from generation to generation, but for which there was not a shadow of justification? In the whole civilised world there was not a more scandalous spectacle than that school presented. Most of its professors had studied in the leading cities on the Continent; there was an enormous number of earnest students; and the professors of physiology and practical chemistry had to lecture twice a day because the lecture-rooms were so small; but the Government would not give them a penny towards the cost of larger rooms, and they had none of those laboratories or expensive appliances which with super abounding generosity Continental Governments supplied to their schools. All these advantages were denied to the Catholic School of Medicine, but at the same time money was being squandered to an appalling amount on every conceivable form of humbug and mock education. The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction was spending £41,000 a year in salaries for an army of officials who were of no advantage to the country; but this School of Medicine, doing the best work that the country could show, was boycotted and starved by the paternal Government under which they lived.

What was the recent history of this University question? So far from any progress having been made, they were farther from a settlement than ever. In 1901 the Government appointed a Royal Commission, for which the Nationalist Party disclaimed any responsibility whatever, to inquire into the facilities existing in Ireland for University education; but from the scope of that Commission Trinity College was most carefully excluded. The Prime Minister's speeches had long since ceased to raise any hope in his breast, but on April 22nd, 1901, the right hon. Gentleman said— It is necessary in this question that we should have the fullest information on the subject, and I trust that when the Commission reports, which I do not think will be very long, the result will be that the public opinion in this country will render it perfectly possible for the House to deal practically with the problem which I have been endeavouring to elucidate. The Commission, taking two years to investigate the question, presented their Report, and a more interesting document was never issued. If hon. Members would read the three volumes of evidence as he had done—he did not suppose they would—they would obtain really exhaustive information on the Irish. University question. The Commission had a splendid representation of all that was best in the English educational world, but it was characteristically manned, since, although appointed to inquire into the grievances of Irish Catholics, it had not a single Irish Catholic layman upon it. The Commissioners, in summarising their conclusions, declared that— The present arrangement by which the degrees of the Royal University are attainable by examination alone has lowered the ideals of University life and education in Ireland and should be abolished, and that the system by which, in making appointments to the senate and offices, account must be taken of the religious profession of the person to be appointed with a view to maintaining an even balance between Churches is educationally unsound. And so they went on condemning seriatim every provision for University education, and they drew up an elaborate scheme, to which all the Commissioners agreed, suggesting the remedy. One recommendation was that the endowment and equipment of a new college in Dublin should be on the scale required by a University college of the first rank. That college was to be for Catholics, and they framed a constitution not as liberal as the one which he proposed on behalf of the Irish Party. That Report was presented in 1903, but it had since been thrown into the wastepaper basket and not the slightest notice had been taken of it. He had in his hand the separate note of Professor Dickey who represented the Presbyterians of the North, and he appeared to be a more liberal representative of the Presbyterians than they were accustomed to meet in the House of Commons. Professor Dickey represented Magee College, which trained the clergy of the Presbyterian Church, and he strongly supported the proposition of the First Lord of the Treasury, as set forth in his letter to his constitutents, recommending the establishment and endowment of a separate University to meet the wants of the Catholics in Ireland, a proposition which he considered was the only practical solution. He did not need to labour any other portion of that Report. He thought the First Lord of the Treasury would agree that he was not at all exaggerating when he declared that this was one of the weightiest condemnations ever pronounced upon the educational system of Ireland. And yet that Report was never discussed in the House, and no attempt had been made by the Government to frame a scheme upon the recommendations of that Report. The men who devoted so much labour to investigating this question were men of great distinction, and he thought they had been treated in a very scurvy fashion by the Government.

In the autumn of 1903, shortly after this Report was issued, rumours began to circulate that the Government had decided to take no action on it but that they had a totally new scheme. Ireland was thick with rumours of this new plan to settle the University question, but throughout the summer and autumn of 1903 not a single Member of the Nationalist Party was permitted to hear what this scheme was. They heard some extraordinary rumours. It was said that Sir Antony MacDonnell went to Belfast and promised them large sum of money if they would agree to this new scheme. He went to Trinity College and promised them £10,000 or £20,000 a year if they would agree to the scheme. He wished to know, did the Government authorise Sir Antony MacDonnell to promise £20,000 a year Trinity College? He thought that a Question on which he was entitled to have an Answer. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman representing Trinity College was engaged in conversation with the First Lord of the Treasury, and perhaps he would be able to tell him whether he was correct or not when he stated that this offer had been made to Trinity College. If this offer had been made with the approval of the Government he was not finding fault with it, but he wanted to know whether it was the action of the Government. He wanted to know what were the principles and the methods by which Ireland was governed. This kind of thing went on during the autumn of 1903, and finally their hopes were raised by a remarkable letter published on the very last day of 1903 in the Press by Lord Dunraven.

He thought they were entitled to know from the First Lord of the Treasury whether that letter, which raised the hopes of the Irish people to the highest possible point, was published with the consent of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, and was the First Lord of the Treasury a party to that transaction.


was understood to say that he knew nothing about it.


said the right hon. Gentleman professed to know nothing about it, but was it not a monstrous thing that the Irish people should be delude in this way. An official offered £10,000 to Trinity College and the First Lord of the Treasury knew nothing about it. Servants of the Government were allowed to offer large financial bribes to the Presbyterians of Belfast [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order, order"] He did not mean anything offensive, and he would say hat servants of the Government were allowed to offer large financial inducements to get them to agree to a scheme, and then they were told that the Government knew nothing about it. He did not wonder that the Bishops of Ireland were so bitter after the way they had been treated. The Bishops asked how far they would go and they accepted the scheme only on the understanding that the Government meant business. Now they were told that the Government never meant business at all. They were to have a great debate later on upon the whole question of these devolution proposals, and the proceedings which led up to them. That would be a very interesting debate; but nevertheless they were entitled to know the relations of the Government in regard to the proceedings of Sir Antony MacDonnell upon this University question. These proceedings took place more than a year ago, and there had been ample opportunities for the Attorney-General to find out who was at the back of the Dunraven letter upon the University question. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not set his detectives to work to discover where the letter was written. He really thought that this was a very significant illustration of the whole method of Irish Government, and it had added enormously to the exasperation of those who were so deeply interested in this question.

For thirty years they had been promised by successive Irish Secretaries and successive Prime Ministers that this question would be settled in the House of Commons, but since last year a backward step had been taken which, if adhered to, would put a perpetual barrier between them and the realisation of their hopes. They were told by the Chief Secretary for Ireland last year that no settlement could be attempted, or ought to be attempted, until there was absolute unanimity. The First Lord of the Treasury for the first time stated categorically that this question could never be made a Government question in the House of Commons, and he went on to say that it must be settled in some other way. He said that it must be settled as Catholic Emancipation was settled. Was Catholic Emancipation not made a Government question? What great Irish grievance was there which was ever settled without being male a Government question? Supposing the doctrine had been set up in the past that no remedy should be applied as long as a minority was opposed to it—where would they have been in regard to the land question, Catholic Emancipation, the tithes question, and the disestablishment of the Irish Church? In spite of all the bitter and vehement opposition of the Protestants of Ireland who belonged to the Established Church of Ireland, Mr. Gladstone was not afraid to take up that great question. Why should the Prime Minister and the Government be afraid to take up this greater question, so far as the interests of Ireland were concerned, of higher education for the Catholics of Ireland? Why should he shrink back before a small and diminishing section of the most bigoted Protestants in Ireland, and tell the Irish people that they must do without University education practically for ever so long as they could not convert the Orange Members of Parliament? He remembered seven years ago the eloquent words in which the right hon. Gentleman appealed to the Unionist Party to remove this great reproach. Seven years had passed and they were further away from the goal to-day. No Government had the right to exist for one day longer than the time when it had admitted that it was unable to provide for the education of the people. The Unionist Party had now had ten years of power with an enormous majority, and they had through the mouth of their leader admitted the grievance, and although they had been entreated to remedy that grievance they had refused.


The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in the earlier portion of his speech was good enough to refer to many statements which it has been my duty from time to time to make in this House, in terms far too favourable for the merits of those statements, but with the addendum that he did not think it possible I should be able to add on the present occasion either to the earnestness or to the force of the appeals which I had made before, or materially to increase the strength of the arguments which have always seemed to me to point in the direction of improving the opportunities of University education in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman spoke quite accurately; there is nothing that I can say to-day which will add, either to the argumentative or to the rhetorical weight of any appeals which I may have before made to the House, and through the House to the country. I have sorrowfully to admit that when the hon. Gentleman says that since those appeals were made this particular cause has as yet made no particular progress, either in the House or in the country, I find it impossible, as an honest man, to say that in my judgment he is wrong, I think that while the hon. Gentleman has done me justice, and more than justice perhaps, in that part of his speech, he has done me something less than justice in the later remarks he made. He hag asked me whether I was aware of negotiations which he says were going on in Ireland, and whether I was responsible for plans that he seems to think had emanated from the Cabinet or from myself in connection with University education in that country. He is entirely mistaken; I have done my best to persuade this House, and my countrymen at large, that the question of higher education in Ireland was one urgently deserving of their sympathetic attention, but I have never mixed myself up in any way with—indeed, I was not aware of—the transactions to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the latter part of his remarks.

If we only listened to the argumentative basis of the speeches on either side which have been put forth to-day, it would, I think, puzzle the auditor who for the first time became acquainted with this controversy to say where the insuperable difficulty lay in settling the question of higher education in Ireland. My hon. and learned friend the Member for South Derry made a very able speech against the Amendment, and laid down certain propositions which he said ought to govern any dealings with education, whether primary, secondary, or University, in Ireland, conditions which, if granted, would make him and hon. Gentlemen opposite fellow-workers on the same principles. I cannot make out that the principles laid down by my hon. and learned friend are principles repudiated by hon. Gentlemen; I listened with attention to what he said; he seemed to think that any system of education was satisfactory which, being established by this House, provided that there were to be no tests, and provided that there was not to be anything in the nature of public funds devoted to denominational purposes. But in any scheme which I, at all events, have endeavoured to advocate either in this House or elsewhere, I have never suggested either that there should be denominational tests applied to a new college or a new University, or that the funds which this House might give to such college or University should be, in even the smallest part, devoted to interests which would properly be described as denominational. Therefore, it would seem that my hon. and learned friend and I ought to have no difficulty in agreeing on this matter. I have listened to speeches by hon. Gentlemen opposite this afternoon, speeches of great ability and in some cases of great eloquence, and I do not make out that they have claimed on their part that the principles on which my hon. and learned friend and I are agreed should be transgressed by them if they had their way, and were able to obtain the educational advantages which, beyond all question, are urgently required in the interests of higher education in Ireland.

My hon. and learned friend on that last point seemed to hold a view which I frankly admit I cannot agree with. I do agree as to the undenominational character of any new educational establishment which we ought to set up, but where I differ from him is as to the need of setting up such an establishment. My hon. and learned friend appears to think that Ireland is already amply provided for, has all that a country of 4,000,000 and more inhabitants should have in the way of provision of University training; and he took advantage of certain statistics brought before the House by the right hon. Member for Haddington, who pointed out that Trinity College, Dublin, and the Queen's Colleges had all diminished in the number of their students in the course of the last twenty years. My hon. and learned friend asked, if that were the condition of Irish higher education, if that were taken as the true measure of the demand made by the Irish people for higher education, what was the object of spending more or establishing new institutions, when the old institutions are already in excess of any demand likely to be made upon them. I cannot agree with that view. It is true, and it is a melancholy truth, that Trinity College has somewhat diminished in the number of its students; but I take it that is due principally to the great agricultural revolutions through which Ireland has passed since 1881, which have gravely diminished the resources, and have perhaps not inconsiderably diminished the number of that class which used to send their sons to Trinity College. It is impossible in such a state of things that you should expect the number to be kept up to the old standard; and the only indication that that gives of the need for higher education in Ireland is to show that one class, at all events, which greatly desired education is less prosperous and numerous than it was. With regard to Queen's College, Belfast, which, situated as it is in the midst of a wealthy, thriving, progressive, and energetic community, ought, one would have supposed, to have increased, as that community itself has, I can see that the diminution in numbers may have more than one cause. But the principal cause is due to the sinister effects which I think the Royal University is having upon the interests of higher education in Ireland.

The Royal University, I believe, does do a great deal of very excellent work; but one thing it does do, and must do by the very nature of its institution, which is not at all excellent—it substitutes openly and avowedly a system of examination for a system of University training. It enables the student who has gone through nothing in the nature of a University discipline, but who has gone to the coach or the crammer with an assiduity sufficient to enable him to pass a degree, to go forth to the world as a Bachelor or Master of Arts, or as one qualified by his training to rank with those who have attended the great Universities of England, Scotland, or the Continent. Let us thrust away this fallacy from among us, let us not give in to the narrowest and shallowest view that can possibly be taken of University education, which concentrates attention on the examination which concludes the University career as if that were the one thing that gave University training value; whereas I am not sure that there might not be very strong reasons given for holding that in those Universities which either have not got final examinations, or attach no value to them, or in Universities in the past when they did not have final examinations, the education was just as good, just as broad, and satisfactory in the culture it gave, as the more modern and elaborate system to which we have become too accustomed. But whether the system of examination now prevailing in England be right or wrong, not one of those who are in favour of it will dare in these days to advocate the heresy that it is the examination, or success in the examination, which gives the true measure of what educational life can give to the out of a country. The Royal University, whatever services it may have done to Ireland, has certainly done her great disservice if and in so far as it has spread abroad the idea that all that a University can give may be readily, cheaply, and expeditiously obtained by a success in some examination. I think that accounts, partially at all events, for the diminution in the number of students at the great colleges.

At Queen's College, Belfast, there may be found another reason. I fear that that college in some important respects is without the fund which would enable it to rank as a fully equipped University college. It lacks the means. It may be said that Belfast could provide it with the means I do not argue that; but one thing is certain, this House cannot provide the means. It is impossible for any Government, or any Chief Secretary, to come to this House and ask for additional funds for Queen's College, Belfast, unless while bringing that great institution up to a higher educational level they are not leaving wholly untouched the grievance which has been brought before us by the Amendment. One most unhappy result of leaving this question unsettled is that it not merely injures the higher education which otherwise the Roman Catholic population of Ireland might enjoy, but stunts and sterilises the means of education which are already at the disposal of Protestants and Presbyterians in that college.

While, therefore, for these reasons I am in whole-hearted sympathy with those who desire to see this question settled I confess there is in the methods in which we are asked to assist in it a certain tone which I think Englishmen and Scotchmen naturally resent. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said, "You refuse to do this, and you refuse to do that. You refuse to give the form of education you desire." In one sense that is true. It is true that this House has not given the money to provide a complete scheme of higher education for Ireland; but then this House has never given money for that purpose either to England or to Scotland. I am one of those who think that the present condition of Ireland justifies special provisions being made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom but I do not think that Irish Members further their cause when they say to Englishmen and Scotchmen, "It is your plain and obvious duty to give us those gifts which you do not give to English and Scotch Universities." Even the additional grant proposed to be given to English Universities will not raise the amount given by this House to higher education in England up to the level per head of population of that already given to Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen may think that the money is illused in Ireland, but as regards the mere amount of the Vote from this House, estimated per head of population, it is larger in Ireland than in this country. I think that consideration might modify the tone of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But we all know that, unless this House will come to the rescue of Irishmen in this matter, it is hardly possible that, from their own resources, they should be able to supply all that is required for a completely equipped University college.

Some hon. Gentlemen have discussed the merits or demerits of Trinity College, Dublin; and I think my hon. and learned friend on this side of the House, while sympathising with Trinity College, threw out the idea that, after all, as now at Trinity College there were no tests, as every opportunity was given there, and every advantage extended to Roman Catholics to take advantage of its teaching, it would be undoubtedly foolish to establish another University where already a University exists which would do all that is required. I am not, and never have been, quite certain whether those who use that argument are dealing quite sincerely with their own convictions. Does my hon. friend on this side of the House and those who agree with him on the other side wish to turn Trinity College into an institution in which the majority of the professors and students should be Roman Catholics? I have never concealed my view that I should regard such a result with the utmost dismay. Trinity College has been by character and inception—actually by law and by statute for the greater part of its history, but since 1873 by character and inception—a Protestant institution. Many Roman Catholics, I am glad to think, have gained by its teaching; but the flavour, the atmosphere, as my hon. friend has called it, of the institution is, and always has been, Protestant. Is there any Protestant in this House who sincerely wishes that to be changed? And if no Protestant wishes it to be changed, what is the only inference? The only inference is either that they are prepared serenely to say that Roman Catholics are to have no higher education or they are prepared to have some other institution in which higher education can be given to Roman Catholics. There is no other way out of that difficulty if the Roman Catholics of Ireland are to attend University education in anything like proportion to their numbers. Of course the wealthy classes, those who are most able to give their children a University education, are for the most part Protestants, but put the proportion as you like. Do not drive arithmetic to its extreme conclusions, but let us suppose that if as many Roman Catholics as could be induced to take advantage of higher education were to go to Trinity College, it is beyond doubt that that college would change in its character. But if they are not to go to that college, where are they to go? Therefore I say every man who sincerely wishes the two things I wish for—namely, that Trinity College should remain as it is and that the Roman Catholic population should have full advantage of University education—is driven to the conclusion, as I have been driven, that you must find other provision for them. I wish that dilemma would be met by any Gentleman differing from me in this respect who is going to follow me in the debate. It is a very plain issue I put forward, and I should like to know if hon. Gentlemen can solve that riddle to which I can find only one answer and to which I believe only one answer is possible.

I do not propose to add anything more to what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has rightly described as the countless speeches I have made on this subject. I have never seen or heard any answer to the broad line of argument I have advanced. It only remains for me to deal with the personal part of the question to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention, and which figured largely in the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo. I have been attacked—I do not say unfairly or harshly attacked —but I have been attacked because, holding these opinions and being a member of a Government which has now been in office a good many years, I have done nothing to advance the views I have consistently advocated. It is quite true that nothing has been done; but have I ever held out from the very beginning of this controversy the smallest expectation that the Government as a whole in the present state of public opinion could be got to agree on this question? I think I may be open to the observation that gentlemen in office have no right to have private opinions, and, if they have private opinions, they should be carefully kept under control, and they should on no public question express a desire for a certain policy unless they know they can give effect to it by the united action of the Cabinet and of the Party supporting them. I think there is something to be said for that view. Certainly it would save those who hold opinions to which their colleagues and their Party do not agree a great deal of inconvenience if it were understood to be correct.


said that in his presence in August, 1889, the right hon. Gentleman said he would make this the first or one of the principal measures in the next Government, and that he would postpone the training colleges to a University scheme for Ireland. That promise was repeated in September of the same year in a celebrated speech.


I do not remember the speech to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have referred to the letters to which constant reference has been made this afternoon, written to my constituents in 1898 and 1899, and there I distinctly laid it down that it was a personal opinion and that it could only be carried out as a Party measure; and I believe I expressed that opinion long anterior to those letters, and I certainly have held it in subsequent years and I do not think events have changed. I have done my best in this House at some personal sacrifice, at the cost of some unpopularity, in a manner by no means approved of by those on whose support I depend in my own constituency. I have steadily advocated this cause. I have not succeeded in converting either the House or the country, or the Party to which I have the honour to belong, or the Cabinet of which I have the honour to be a member. It may have been the fault of my arguments or of my methods of expressing them. If so, I regret it. But it is absolute folly to expect that in matters where religion comes in, as it does in this matter—religion, the great divider of mankind—you will be able to get a Party or a Government in line on a question which arouses feelings, and prejudices, I am bound to add, which have their roots in so ancient a past and whose vigour the passage of years does not appear in any sense to diminish.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said no Government was worthy to exist for a moment which did not deal with this admitted grievance, if there be an admitted grievance.


It is an admitted grievance.


Then what Government in this country will be worthy to exist for a moment? Does he suppose that when the occupants of the rather thinly furnished Front Bench opposite in the course of events come into office they will find it easier to deal as a Government with this question? Is there a better agreement among Gentlemen on that side of the House than on this side with regard to higher education in Ireland? If I thought there was, I should for the first time see a reason to congratulate myself upon a change of Government.


Gentlemen on this side of the House, recognising their incapacity to deal with the question, are anxious to let us deal with it ourselves.


Are they anxious? They took very good care last night to avoid saying so. I do not see signs of unanimous anxiety on their side. Supposing that is so, I am quite unable to distinguish between giving a form of government to Ireland which we know would produce certain results to which one objects and producing those results directly. There is an hon. Gentleman opposite who I believe has a very violent objection to this proposal or anything like this proposal, but he would have no objection, as I understand it, to doing it at second hand.

MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

I should have the strongest possible objection. I voted without knowing that the clause which permitted this to be done in the Bill of 1893 was slipped in at the last moment.


I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The last thing I should desire would be to misrepresent him. There is an end of the idea that he is going to get out of the responsibility by wishing to give Home Rule. [A NATIONALIST Member: It does not matter about him.] It is not for me to judge whether the estimate the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Louth Division has formed of the Gentlemen below the gangway or the estimate which the Gentlemen below the gangway have formed of the Member for the Louth Division is the right one. I can only say, as regards the future of this question, which, I fear, has not advanced, that I have no hope of seeing it settled by the formal ordinary action of one Party or of the other. It can only be settled as other religious questions have been settled, not by legislation undertaken formally by any Government, but by the co-operation of the majority of the House if and when the majority of the House, from whichever side it is drawn, come to the conclusion that this is a question which ought to be dealt with.


What question does the right hon. Gentleman allude to?


I will not go into the question now.


May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what religious question was ever settled by this House on non-Party lines? Was the Reformation or Catholic Emancipation?


I will not go into that question. If it pleases the hon. Gentleman, I will concede his present contention and say the question I suggest is a new question. I do not believe, until by some agency which I do not command, you can produce some alteration in the temper of mind of the people of this country, you will be able to have a Government homogeneous on all other points and homogeneous also on this. There is no sign of it at present on that side of the House or on this, and I fear there is no immediate prospect of it. The hon. Gentleman, turning to my friends who represent Ulster constituencies, pointed to them as the true obstacles, and the only obstacles that stand in the way of a solution of this problem. I think if my hon. friends were the only obstacles in the way we should be within measurable distance of a solution, because, earnest and devoted as they are, I do not believe they could or would stand out against the general opinion of the majority of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The difficulty of this question is not Ulster; the difficulty is Great Britain, and that is the thing, the only thing, which makes me take so dark a view of this controversy. It is only by slow degrees you can convert popular feeling on this subject. The progress must be slow; it is slower than I had hoped, and slower than I had anticipated. It is the conversion of England and Scotland that is necessary. When that is effected Ulster will gladly, I believe, acquiesce.

I have spoken with great frankness to the House. I do not know whether what I have said may be pleasing or displeaing. I may not have raised hon. Gentlemen's opinion either of my powers of persuasion or my powers of Party management, but I have frankly told the House exactly what I think of the merits of the question, and exactly what I believe as to the immediate chances of its success. The inveterate belief, and, as I think, the erroneous belief which prevails in this country that this is simply a manœuvre of the Irish Bishops to obtain the control of higher education is one which ought to be dissipated and which, I hope, may be dissipated, but it exists. The opponents of this measure, I believe, quite sincerely desire to see Irish Roman Catholics given the same opportunities as are given to Englishmen and Scotch- men. They say two things. They say, Why is Ireland asking of Great Britain privileges for Roman Catholics which Roman Catholics have not got in America, have not got in Germany, have not got in Austria, have not got in France? The second question is, Are we not in the endeavour to promote higher education in Ireland really handing over higher education to the Bishops? I do not believe we should be doing so. I do not believe that any scheme I have supported would have that effect. What is required more than anything else is not to persuade the people of this country that Ireland needs higher education, not to persuade the people of this country that in giving higher education we should be liberal in providing it, but to persuade them that the means by which that great need is to be supplied will not have as one of its collateral consequences the augmentation of clerical influence in directions to which they have a strong, inveterate, and insuperable objection.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said the Prime Minister had made many remarkable speeches on the Irish University question, but never one more remarkable than that to which the House had just listened. The right hon. Gentleman claimed to have made a frank statement. Nothing could be franker than the speech of the Prime Minister, and the frankest and most remarkable statement which it contained was the statement that the obstacle to the higher education of the Catholics of Ireland was to be found in Great Britain. Coupling that observation with others, he thought he saw what the right hon. Gentleman meant was the great obstacle—namely, ignorance, prejudice, and religious intolerance. Only a few hours before the right hon. Gentleman declared that the great binding principle of his Party was the refusal to the Irish people of the control of their own affairs, and now he was confessing that the youth of Ireland were deprived of higher education through the ignorance of the people of Great Britain. That was an astounding situation. He did not intend to quote all the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman; they had indeed been countless—in fact, had there been a little more practice and a little less speaking the question would have been nearer solution—but the Prime Minister had evidently forgotten that he had definitely promised English Governmental action in the matter. In August, 1889, in the debate on the Appropriation Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said— …we have no alternative but to try and devise some new scheme by which the wants of the Catholic population shall be met. Mr. Parnell then asked whether he proposed to embody his attempt at a solution in a Bill early in the next session, and the right hon. Gentleman replied— …there is no possibility of dealing with this question or University education except under a Bill. Of course, I cannot give any pledge at this moment as to the exact order in which various questions will be dealt with by the Government next session. It was clear, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman then contemplated the introduction of a Bill dealing with the question in the following session of Parliament. That solemn pledge, which Ireland was foolish enough to take seriously, was so lightly treated by the Prime Minister that he had absolutely for gotten it. For twenty-five years this question had been fought by the present Nationalist Party, and before that by the then Irish Parliamentary Party, and, he believed, still earlier by Gavan Duffy, but the climax had now been reached of a Prime Minister, supported by the largest majority the House had ever seen, declaring, although himself in favour of the Irish demand, that between him and the settlement of the question there stood the obstacle not of justice, or of reason, or of the Irish demand, or of his own opinion, or of the opinion of all enlightened men, but of the ignorance, prejudice, and intolerance of the people of Great Britain. Irishmen had urged many arguments in favour of Home Rule, but they had never adduced one so powerful as that with which the Prime Minister had now supplied them.

He regretted that a larger body of English Members had not listened to the masterly survey of the situation by the hon. Member for East Mayo. He agreed with the Prime Minister that those who were willing to give an Irish Assembly power to do certain things ought to be prepared to do those things themselves. But the foundation of the objection to the endowment of a Catholic University was that money would be given for sectarian teaching under sectarian influences. The whole principle, however, had already been given away, because, as the hon. Member for East Mayo had pointed out, £6,000 a year was given to University College, Dublin, the president of which—in whom was vested absolute control—and many professors were Jesuits. A great deal had been heard recently about Sir Antony MacDonnell. Why was it that Sir Antony MacDonnell had been able to secure so great a position in the councils of the Empire? Because he had the advantage of a University education. Without that advantage he would have been unable to obtain the high place in the Indian Civil Service examination which enabled him to begin his brilliant Indian career. There were thousands of young men growing up in Ireland who would be deprived of all chance of any such career. Was it not cruel, after the declaration of the Prime Minister fifteen years ago, that there should be a new generation of Irishmen growing up who also would be deprived of the advantage of University education through the ignorance and prejudice of the people of Great Britain?

The only fortune of most young Irishmen was the intelligence, and the climax was to be put to centuries of English misrule by refusing the facilities necessary for the proper development of their intellectual faculties. When he was at Galway, in the same college as the Attorney-General, many men were there getting a University education under the system now condemned by the heads of the Church who would have found it impossible to get a University education in England, and very difficult in Scotland. He knew very well that the poorest of the poor were unable to get higher education. He knew that side by side with the parents who were willing to send their children to Queen's College there were plenty of them who would rather deprive their children of even learning the alphabet than send them to a college which had not the approval of their own ecclesiastical advisers. There were many Catholic boys who were quite as intelligent and quick as other boys, and yet they were kept by a religious feeling and conscientious conviction from getting the advantages of a University education. He thought that was a cruel wrong to Ireland. The last half century of the denial of University education was as great a wrong to Ireland as three centuries of bad government, because it lay at the root of many evils. What was a young man to do now in Ireland? What career had he before him? However intelligent or ambitious he might be, if he were a strong Catholic with strong views he stood outside the doors of University education. There was in Ireland no commercial career open to him, and the young Irishman was compelled either to be a professional man or a Civil servant if he did not go into business, and yet, year after year, session after session, and generation after generation, they went on making this appeal, and instead of finding any relief they found the grievance existing just the same, and the obstacles thrown in the way of University education not diminishing but increasing.

The Prime Minister had now put an insuperable obstacle in the way of the concession of University education to Ireland. The only way it could be settled now, it was said, was by a measure to which all sections and Parties agreed. He thought that if the Prime Minister exercised over his Cabinet the control which he ought to exercise if he had the courage of his convictions; if he would exercise the same mercilessness in driving out of his Cabinet every enemy of education in Ireland as he had showed in regard to every enemy of protection; if he did all that and drove out of the Cabinet the representatives of the faction below the gangway and brought in a University Bill he would tell the right hon. Gentleman what would happen. He would find that he would have the votes of ten or twelve Members below the gangway from Ulster and he would not have the opposition of all the Ulster Members. He would find no opposition from the Leader of the Liberal Party in that House. True he would be confronted by the Orangemen from Ireland who call themselves Tories, and the Orangemen from England who call themselves Liberals. He thought a man was an intolerant Protestant who would not allow a Catholic to be educated in the way he desired to be educated. The right of a parent to have a child educated in his own religion was as sacred as the right to go into any church or chapel. The right hon. Gentleman upon such a measure would have the support of a large majority of his own Party, and he would be supported by all the leading Members of the Liberal Party sitting on the front Opposition Bench. He would have the support of all the Nationalist Members for Ireland, and he would be able to carry his measure far more easily than was the case with the one-sided Education Act which was passed not long ago. He held that the weakness of the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for this question not having been dealt with. To wait until all Parties brought in a Bill by consent was postponing the question until the Greek Kalends. They would never get a settlement from the right hon. Gentleman, and he did not know that they would get it from his successors, but they would press the matter on. The treatment of this question showed that this and all the other affairs of Ireland could only be satisfactorily settled by an Irish Government.

MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)

said he felt that there were a large number of electors in this country whose voice would have a very important bearing upon the settlement of this question when their suffrages were again asked who had not been at all represented in this debate. He wished to say a few words on behalf of Free Churchmen. If this were a question of education pure and simple, he should not be found in opposition to it. He deeply sympathised with the difficulties of Ireland in regard to higher education, but the question which was forced upon them was, Is it education pure and simple, or is it the extension of the principle of endowment of denominational education of any kind? He was afraid the speech of his hon. friend had dissipated any idea they might have had that this was not the endowment of a denominational institution. It was nothing to him that University College had been set up on the lines described by his hon. friend. He was no party to the endowment of a college of that sort. He and his friends were entirely opposed to the principle of endowing a college by public funds when the governing body was composed mainly of Catholic priests. They believed the principle to be absolutely wrong, and they could not be forced into an extension of it. For thirty years he had been an earnest advocate of the rights of the Irish people to manage their own affairs, and he was prepared to carry out that principle with all the issues which were involved. He was surprised that the Prime Minister and his hon. friend did not see the essential difference between granting the great principle of liberty to a nation and allowing them to take the consequences on themselves, and taking direct action in endowing a denominational institution. Freedom to manage their own affairs who aid entail on the Irish people certain responsibilities. He and those who agreed with him had no responsibility in regard to what they would do with that freedom. He did not see that he was in the least inconsistent. He was prepared to let Irishmen manage their own domestic and internal affairs, and he was not afraid of what the result would be. He was perfectly prepared to take any risk involved in that course.

The position of Trinity College was no doubt very exceptional. He sympathised deeply with his Nationalist friends in their unwillingness to allow their sons to go into the atmosphere of Protestantism with which they did not agree. He thought, however, they were

mistaken. Oxford and Cambridge were a few years ago saturated with Anglicanism, and, indeed, they still were, but Dissenters had sent their sons there. It was not true that they were afraid to trust their sons there. What was the result of their going to these colleges? They not only won a very large and disproportionate number of the prizes at their disposal, but they were gradually changing the atmosphere of these institutions, just as he believed their Roman Catholic friends would change the atmosphere of Trinity College, Dublin. Disabilities had to be removed before their sons had a fair chance at Oxford and Cambridge. Now they could become Fellows and Heads of Colleges. It they could be assured that University extension would be carried out in Ireland on the lines he had indicated he was quite sure that the opposition to a another University would be at once removed, and that there would be the most hearty desire to help forward that higher education which the country so richly deserved and so badly wanted.

SIR CARNE RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)

said he was entirely in accord with the Irish Party opposite on this question of education, and he would Support, them in the division lobby.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 263; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 139.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bignold, Sir Arthur Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bigwood, James Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire
Allsopp, Hon. George Bill, Charles Cayzer, Sir Charles William
Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell Bingham, Lord Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Black, Alexander William Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J. (Birm.
Arnold-Forster,RtHn.Hugh. O. Blundell, Colonel Henry Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc
Arrol, Sir William Bond, Edward Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Channing, Francis Allston
Aubrey-Fletcher,RtHon.Sir H. Bousfield, William Robert Chapman, Edward
Baird, Jn. Geo. Alexander Brigg, John Clive, Captain Percy A.
Balcarres, Lord Bright, Allan Heywood Coates, Edward Feetham
Baldwin, Alfred Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Balfour,Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r Brown, Sir A. H. (Shrosph.) Coghill, Douglas Harry
Balfour, RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh) Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch. Bull, William James Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.
Banbury, Sir Frederick Geo. Burdett-Coutts, W. Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Banner, John S. Harmood- Burt, Thomas Compton, Lord Alwyne
Barlow, John Emmott Butcher, John George Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor) Caldwell, James Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Campbell.Rt Hn.J.A.(Glasgow) Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S).
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. Cripps, Charles Alfred
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Crombie, John William
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil Randles, John S
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hudson, George Bickersteth Rankin, Sir James
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Jacoby, James Alfred Ratcliff, R. F.
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Jeffreys,RtHon.ArthurFred. Reid, James (Greenock)
Dalkeith, Earl of Kennaway.Rt.Hon.Sir John H. Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kenyon,Hon.Geo.T. (Denbigh) Renwick, George
Davenport, Wm. Bromley Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W. Rickett, J. Compton
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Kerr, John Ritchie,Rt.Hon.Chas.Thomson
Dickson, Charles Scott Keswick, William Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Kimber, Sir Henry Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Dixon-Hartland,SirFred Dixon King, Sir Henry Seymour Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Law,Andrew Bonar(Glasgow) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Duncan, J. Hastings Lawson, Hn.H.L. W. (MileEnd) Robinson, Brooke
Dunn, Sir William Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks, N.R) Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Edwards, Frank Lawson, SirWilfrid(Cornwall) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham Round, Rt. Hon. James
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Eve, Harry Trelawney Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.) Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Samuel,Sir HarryS.(Limehouse
Faber, George Denison (York) Lewis, John Herbert Sandys,Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lloyd-George, David Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.
Fenwick, Charles Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lonsdale, John Brownlee Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lowe, Francis William Slack, John Bamford
Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N.E.) Loyd, Archie Kirkman Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Finlay, Sir R. B.(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs) Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Smith, RtHnJ. Parker (Lanarks
Fisher, William Hayes Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Fison, Frederick William Macdona, John Gumming Spear, John Ward
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- MacIver, David (Liverpool) Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Maconochie, A. W. Stanley, Rt Hon. Lord(Lancs.)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Flower, Sir Ernest M'Iver, SirLewis (Edinburgh W. Stock, James Henry
Forster, Henry William M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Stone, Sir Benjamin
Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W. Majendie, James A. H. Strachey, Sir Edward
Gardner, Ernest Markham, Arthur Basil Stroyan, John
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E.(Wigt'n Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriesshire Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Middlemore, John Throgmorton Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Thornton, Percy M.
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Tollemache, Henry James
Grant, Corrie Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Tuff, Charles
Greene, Sir E W(BrySEdm'nds Moore, William Tuke, Sir John Batty
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Morrell, George Herbert Webb, Colonel William George
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taunton
Grenfell, William Henry Moss, Samuel Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Gretton, John Mount, William Arthur White, George (Norfolk)
Griffith, Ellis, J. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Nicholson, William Graham Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hambro, Charles Eric Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry Parker, Sir Gilbert Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Parkes, Ebenezer Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Pease, Horbert Pike(Darlington Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Haslett, Sir James Horner Peel, Hon. Wm. R. Wellesley Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N.W.) Pemberton, John S. G. Wilson, John (Durham,Mid.)
Heaton, John Henniker Percy, Earl WTilson, John (Glasgow)
Helder, Augustus Perks, Robert William Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) Pierpoint, Robert Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Pirie, Duncan V. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Platt-Higgins, Frederick Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Hickman, Sir Alfred Plummer, Sir Walter R. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Higham, John Sharp Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Hoare, Sir Samuel Pretyman, Ernest George
Hogg, Lindsay Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Hoult, Joseph Pym c. Guy
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Boland, John
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Bell, Richard Bolton, Thomas Dolling
Ambrose, Robert Blake, Edward Burke, E. Haviland
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Horniman, Frederick John O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Cautley, Henry Strother Hunt, Rowland O'Kelly, James (Roscommon)
Clancy, John Joseph Jordan, Jeremiah O'Malley, William
Cogan, Denis J. Joyce, Michael O'Mara, James
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Crean, Eugene Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W. Parrott, William
Crooks, William Kilbride, Denis Power, Patrick Joseph
Cullman, J. Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne
Delany, William Lough, Thomas Reddy, M. (Waterford)
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Lundon, W. Redmond, John E.
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Dillon, John MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Roche, John
Doogan, P. C. MacVeagh, Jeremiah Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Hugh, Patrick A. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Duffv, William J. M'Koan, John Shackleton, David James
Emmott, Alfred M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)
Farrell, James Patrick Mooney, John J. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Murnaghan, George Sheehy, David
Ffrench, Peter Murphy, John Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Field, William Nannetti, Joseph P. Sullivam, Donal
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Flynn, James Christopher Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n, N
Gilhooly. James O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert john 0'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid Wallace, Robert
Goulding, Edward Alfred O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wanklyn, James Leslie
Hammond, John O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Harwood, George O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Young, Samuel
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Doherty, William
Healy, Timothy Michael O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside O'Dowd, John

Main Question again proposed.

And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.