§ As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)
moved to amend subsection 4 of Clause 2 (Colleges) by omitting the words providing that students of recognised colleges might be given the benefit of any privileges of matriculated students of the University. His object, he said, was to secure that if recognition by affiliation was to be allowed, the advantages thereby conferred on students of the colleges affiliated should be strictly confined to the privilege of presenting themselves for examination with the view of taking a degree. If the words he proposed to leave out were retained in the Bill, the students of merely affiliated, or recognised, institutions would have every advantage enjoyed by the students of the constituent colleges.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
said they would be put in possession of all the advantages that every student in the University was in possession of. Those advantages were very considerable. All that the student of a recognised college required was the means for obtaining a degree, and these extended rights and privileges would have a tendency to interfere with the entry of students to the University itself. A student finding he could enjoy all these privileges would, if it suited his personal convenience, refrain from entering the University. The retention of the words would tend to discourage membership. It could not be said that any hardship would be created so far as the students of these recognised institutions were concerned if the advantages given to them were confined to their being able to take a degree. Without troubling the House further he begged to move.
§ MR. MOORE (Armagh, N.)
seconded the Amendment. He was, he said, glad that this Amendment had been moved, because in his opinion the Amendment moved by the Chief Secretary on the previous day made this section meaningless, or at the least, very much confused. It was absurd to suggest that a mere 513 matriculated student of these recognised institutions should have all the advantages and privileges of a matriculated student of the University.
In page 2, line 19, to leave out the words 'the benefit of any privileges of matriculated students of the University or.'"—(Mr. Charles Craig.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'or' in page 2, line 20, stand part of the Bill."
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,) Bristol, N.
said the second Amendment on the Paper made quite clear the point that troubled the hon. Member for North Armagh. With regard to the Amendment generally, he quite agreed that nobody who was not an affiliated student should have these benefits. Therefore it was desirable to make it plain that the student pursuing a course of University education in some extraneous institution would have to take the first step and become an undergraduate of the University. That could only be done by matriculation. Having become an undergraduate it was extremely desirable that he should have access to the library and other advantages of the position.
§ MR. BUTCHER (Cambridge University)
sympathised with the object of the Amendment, but was not sure that the omission of the words would be satisfactory. The enjoyment of University privileges should be confined to students, resident in the University, attending lectures in the University town. He did not think that students of affiliated colleges scattered all over the country should have all the rights and privileges of genuine undergraduates. He did not know of any affiliated colleges in the United Kingdom where such rights were granted to students of affiliated colleges. On the ocher hand, if an institution like the Royal College of Science were affiliated to the University in Dublin the students of that college, whether they attended University lectures or not, would be matriculated students of the University town, and he did not know how they were to be differentiated from the internal students of the University. There was one phrase in the clause which met to some extent 514 his difficulty and the difficulty of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. These privileges were granted subject to any limitation contained in the charter or statutes of the University. There were no limitations in the charter, but there might be in the statutes, and he thought they should trust to the governing bodies of the University to put into the schedules such restrictions as would ensure that these students of outside districts should not have the advantages which were extended to the affiliated colleges in the University towns. As he considered the proposal of his hon. friend was somewhat dangerous he was not prepared to support the Amendment striking out these words.
§ *SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University)
felt some difficulty in giving a vote on this question, as he was in some doubt as to the meaning of "affiliated." He called attention to the statement made by the Chief Secretary on the previous day "that the clause did not propose to recognise any college or institution in Ireland as such whatever," and asked how that could be reconciled with the statement in the charter, which provided that the University might recognise certain colleges for certain purposes.
§ Amendment negatived.
In page 2, line 20, after the word 'University' to insert the words 'who are pursuing a course of study ac the University.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
In page 2, line 20, to leave out the word 'or' and to insert the word 'excluding.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *DR. HAZEL (West Bromwich)
moved to add at the end of line 26: "and provided that a student in a recognised or affiliated college or institution shall not be entitled to obtain a University degree unless he shall have completed a period of study of not less than two academical years in a constituent college of the University in Dublin or in the University of Belfast." It would be 515 agreed by all, whether in favour of the Amendment or not, that no more important Amendment was before the House. It was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, and he could have wished that its conduct had remained in his hon. friend's abler hands. Though it had found a foster father, he hoped his hon. friend, like a right-minded parent, would support his child. The Amendment was moved from principle and not from prejudice. He hoped it would be admitted that in the discussions on this Bill he had always endeavoured to say nothing which could be regarded as in the least offensive to those of a faith other than his own. Those of them who objected to the Bill might as well make up their minds that it was going to pass, and that being so they wished it God speed, and they were anxious that it should, if passed into law, achieve all those great results for Ireland which its bust friends hoped and wished for, but it was highly desirable that the principles on which the Bill was based should be adequately safeguarded. What were those principles? The first was the establishment of a teaching University, and the second was the establishment of what, so far as law could make it, should be an undenominational University. In order to establish a teaching University the Chief Secretary had found it necessary to exclude the external students. They had had from him again and again eloquent speeches on the evils of a purely examining University, and of the desirability of social and academic intercourse in the lecture rooms and playing fields, and he agreed to all the right hon. Gentleman said. The hon. Member for East Mayo had several times asked for a definition of a denominational University. He would not offer that, but he would offer a suggestion as to what was an undenominational University. It was a University which by its constitution provided as far as possible that no special privileges should be granted to particular religious denominations, and he thought he would be able to show that unless the Amendment were accepted the Universities of the right hon. Gentleman would not answer that definition, because there were in the Bill wide powers of what was originally called affiliation, but what was now called recognition. They had had a change of terms, but affiliation, as allowed in the Bill, smelt no sweeter to him under 516 its change of name. Everybody admitted that the Senates of these Universities, unless they were in some way restricted, would recognise certain sectarian seminaries, and would recognise attendance at lectures in these seminaries as equivalent to attendance at the lectures of the constituent colleges. That would be done in Dublin in the case of Maynooth certainly, and probably in Belfast in the case of Magee College. If they got recognition of the courses at theological seminaries of any faith whatever as equivalent to courses at the University itself, they would knock the bottom out of the Bill, and violate both of the principles that it must be a teaching and an undenominational University, and the right hon. Gentleman would be an accessory before the fact. There was no academic defence, and no precedent, for recognition of purely theological seminaries as equivalent to University colleges for the purposes of a degree, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite could produce such instances he would be glad to hear of them. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday was eloquent on the safeguards for the undenominationalism of this University—no tests for students or professors, offices open to everybody, without any religious tests, etc., and that was so in the case of the constituent colleges, but the whole position might be turned by the process of affiliation. The right hon. Gentleman, by rejecting a previous Amendment had affirmed the principle that the students in these affiliated colleges were to have all the privileges of the students of the constituent colleges. The constituent college student was not tested, but who was going to say that the affiliated college student, the student from Maynooth or Magee, would not be tested? They had got there an inroad on the principle of un-denominationalism. What was the past attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in relation to these affiliated students? Speaking on the 11th May on the Second Reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman said he—hoped the senates would be strenuous in their determination to secure that anybody who was a graduate of Dublin or Belfast was really a Dublin or Belfast man, and that that would be the spirit in which they would approach the question in Committee.He (Dr. Hazel) had to state with regret that that was not the spirit in which the right 517 hon. Gentleman approached the question in Committee, otherwise he would have accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge University, which was the one now before the House. He took it that a Dublin man, from the University point of view, was a man who had studied at Dublin. Just as an Oxford man was a man who had studied, or rather resided for the ostensible purpose of studying, at Oxford. Within twelve miles of Cambridge University there was Ely Theological College, which was devoted, he understood, to the manufacture of High Church curates. Suppose that the University of Cambridge were by some resolution to grant that a student of the Ely College who had never quitted the precincts of that college for educational purposes should come in for the examination at Cambridge and take a degree, would the right hon. Gentleman, a distinguished Cambridge man himself, describe that student as a Cambridge man? He thought he would utterly repudiate the idea. Why then should a Maynooth student who was going to pursue his Arts course about the same distance from Dublin as Ely was from Cambridge be a Dublin man? Why should he be called a Dublin man because he had passed three years in the cloistered seclusion of Maynooth, or a Belfast man because he had spent three years in the sectarian shades of Magee? These affiliated students need never, under the Bill, reside at the University nor hear a single University lecture, nor set their foot inside the University premises, and yet they would be graduates of the Dublin University and precisely on the same footing, when they had taken their degree, as those who were bona fide members of the constituent college at Dublin. There would be two degrees of entirely different value going forth to the world as of precisely the same value. This Amendment sought to save the right hon. Gentleman from that. It would secure that these students would be not entirely Dublin or Belfast men in the academic sense, but at any rate two-thirds Dublin or Belfast men. He had selected the period of residence adopted in other Universities, but he was not wedded to it; one year would meet his principle just as well, although in practice he thought two years would be far better. He would like to call attention to the history of the 518 Amendment in Committee. On the first occasion when it was discussed the hon. Member for East Mayo spoke on behalf of the Nationalist Party, and opposed the Amendment, not on the ground of principle, but on the ground of expense. He said it was academically desirable, and that it was for the best that Maynooth students should pass at any rate a portion of their Arts course in the University of Dublin, but that it could not be done because of the expense. The line then taken by the Chief Secretary was this: "You are presenting a pistol at the head of Maynooth if you pass the Amendment, and you are telling them that they must at once find accommodation for 200 or 250 Arts students in Dublin." He thought the right hon. Gentleman receded a little from that position when it was pointed out that under his own Bill there would be a period of seven years for Maynooth to accommodate itself to the situation, and that during those seven years these students would be able to obtain their degrees under precisely the same conditions as at present. He ventured to assert that if there had been a division taken at that sitting the Amendment would have received considerable support, if it had not actually been carried. Everybody expected when they left the Committee that day that some concession would be made. He made no charge of any broken pledge, because no pledge was given, but there was an impression abroad to that effect. Then they separated for the Whitsuntide recess, during which time a distinguished ecclesiastic returned home from America, and a meeting of the Irish bishops was held at Maynooth, and then the Committee met again, some three weeks after they separated, for the resumption of the debate on the Amendment, and for the division. What happened? In the meantime the right hon. Gentleman had hardened his right honourable heart. More than that, he no longer relied for defence, as before, on the light battery of "pom poms" from the Irish Office, but he brought up the heavy artillery, in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. And the hon. and learned Member for Waterford came armed not only with the charters of the new English Universities but with something far more potent, the ultimatum of the Irish bishops. He would quote the 519 portion of it which was of most interest on this point—It ran, "We beg to state that we cannot undertake to send the students in the Arts Faculty in Maynooth to reside in Dublin. The result of the Amendment would be to deprive hundreds of students resident in the College of the opportunity they at present enjoy of gaining a University degree.That was read by the hon. and learned Member during his speech, and it made a profound impression particularly in the neighbourhood of the Treasury Bench. In a moment the ground of objection was entirely changed. It was no longer a question of expediency; it was no longer a question of expense; but it was a question of vital principle. And the hon. and learned Member went so far as to wind up his speech by saying that the adoption of the Amendment would be "not only a slur but an actual insult to Ireland," an attitude of which there was no suspicion on the preceding occasion when they discussed this matter. Yesterday the hon. and learned Member had asked the hon. and learned Member for Oxford University for some evidence of the control of the hierarchy in connection with this Bill. Here was some. Here they had, as he suggested, the hierarchy moulding, or, at any rate, endeavouring to mould this measure in Committee. If this was done in the green tree what would be done in the dry? If this was done while the Bill was before the House of Commons, what was likely to be done when the Bishops had to influence not the House of Commons, and not a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, but merely a friendly Senate? Was this Amendment, this suggestion that there should be some restriction on affiliation, an insult and a slur on Ireland? He did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman adhered to that view to-day.
§ *DR. HAZEL
asked why was this styled an insult and a slur? He presumed that it was because the autonomy of the Senate was restricted, because there was restriction on the power of the Senate to do what it liked in the University. But he found that the Bill bristled with restrictions of various kinds on the autonomy of the Senate. Were 520 they also a slur and an insult? When did restriction become a slur and an insult? Was it when there was restriction on affiliation or on recognition? Was it fair for the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to denounce this Amendment as a slur and an insult to Ireland, when without a word of protest from him another and, as he suggested, a wider and more serious restriction was placed on the power of affiliation? A wide restriction was contained in the latter part of subsection 4 of Clause 2, by which it was provided that the Universities—Shall not give privileges under this provision to students in any college or institution in Ireland which prepares students for intermediate or other school examinations or gives education of an intermediate or secondary character.This was a far more serious restriction of the power of affiliation than anything proposed in this Amendment. So one was reluctantly forced to entertain the uneasy suspicion that a restriction became a slur and an insult to Ireland only when it was one to which the majority of the Irish bishops declined to agree. But who had proposed restrictions on the power of affiliation? He had the Report of the Robertson Commission, and he found, on pages 39 and 40 of that Report, that the Royal Commission expressly declared against any power of affiliation being given to the new Roman Catholic University, except only in the case of the Royal College of Science in Dublin. It did not slop there, for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself had declared for restriction. Speaking on the First Reading of the Bill, on 31st March, he said that—There must be a severely restricted right of affiliation.So the right hon. Gentleman had cast a slur and an insult on Ireland! Surely the restriction on the power of affiliation, so far from being an insult and a slur on the Senate, which had the management of a University, would really be a very considerable assistance to it in resisting pressure from outside. In conclusion let him deal with the second point of the bishops' ultimatum, which said that the Amendment would deprive the students of Maynooth of the opportunity they now enjoyed of gaining University degrees, that was to say of 521 obtaining degrees at the Royal University of Ireland. It was perfectly true that they would not be able to obtain degrees under the same system that they obtained them now, namely, by preparation entirely at Maynooth, or examination by an examining body. That was not a disability confined to Maynooth. There were scores of institutions in Ireland which had been able up to now to prepare students for degrees, but which would no longer be able to do so under the present Bill, and hundreds also of deserving private students would lose the same chance, all in the name of academic efficiency. They were told to come to Dublin and attend the lectures, and they could graduate, Why should that be in the case of Maynooth a wrong of the deepest dye, while, in the case of these students, and these other institutions, it was merely necessary in the interests of academic efficiency? There would always be an opportunity for Maynooth students to take their degrees like other people. London University was offered to the external students excluded by the abolition of the Royal University of Ireland and it would be equally open to the clerical students. Moreover, seven years were given under the Bill in which degrees could be obtained under precisely the same conditions as now. During that period it would be perfectly possible, if only the authorities were willing, for the proper accommodation to be acquired or erected in Dublin, in order that the clerical students might take their courses with the rest. The position appeared to be this. The right hon. Gentleman kicked the lay external students, male and female, down the front steps of the new University, and put up the notice, "This is a teaching University," at the same time that he took measures to admit the clerical external students by a side door, marked "Recognition." That being so, the University as it stood was neither a teaching University nor an undenominational University. The position of the Maynooth student after affiliation would be this: he would have precisely the same teachers as now, he would be in the same college as now, he would come up and be examined as now, but instead of being examined by the Royal University of Ireland, he would be examined by the new University of Dublin. He would be so far as that University went as completely an ex- 522 ternal student as he was now an external student of the Royal University of Ireland. He objected to the policy of preference, economic or academic, colonial or clerical. The case for the Amendment had strong Roman Catholic support. Anybody who would take the trouble to look at the evidence given before the Robertson Commission would see that every educated Roman Catholic layman who had given testimony on this point was emphatic as to the necessity of residence in Dublin for clerical students, and if that House were a "Palace of Truth," and they could get at the real opinion of the Irish Party opposite, he was perfectly convinced that the vast majority of them would be found to be of precisely the same opinion. But it did not rest on lay opinion. Catholic ecclesiastics in their educational moments had declared for it with emphasis. He had in his hand the references to the evidence given before the Robertson Commission on this very point by distinguished Roman Catholic ecclesiastics — educationists like Dr. O'Dwyer, Dr. Delany, Mons. Molloy and Dr. Archdall, all of whom declared that the Maynooth students ought to go to Dublin; and still more emphatic was the testimony of the Maynooth professors themselves. Take the evidence of Dr. Hogan, who at that time was Professor of Literature at Maynooth—Speaking for myself," Dr. Hogan said, "and my colleagues in the Arts Department, we are strongly of opinion that at feast from the scholastic point of view these studies could be carried on far more satisfactorily and successfully in Dublin than in Maynooth.Take too the evidence which was given before the Commission by Dr. O'Dea, who was then Vice-President of Maynooth. He said—From the intellectual and social as well as from the spiritual point of view, I readily grant that it is the best scheme.He was speaking of the scheme for Maynooth students spending their whole course there. Then he went on to say something which he would ask the House to mark, because it was an absolute anticipation of the Amendment which he was commending to the House—Difficulties against it would be considerably diminished if pass students were to spend only two years at the University, and take their third at Maynooth in preparation for their degree.
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN (Cork)
asked whether the hon. Gentleman would state in respect of what kind of Dublin University these gentlemen gave their evidence.
§ *DR. HAZEL
As he understood, the evidence given by these gentlemen had never been departed from. They desired that their Arts students should spend their Arts course, or part of it, in Dublin, in order that they might rub shoulders with laymen. The hon. Member knew, of course, that the evidence was voluminous on those particular points, and that it was impossible to lay it before the House, but he thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree, if he had refreshed his memory lately, that the words wore spoken by these rev. gentlemen without qualification as to the particular kind of Roman Catholic University they were to have. He commended the Amendment to the House because it would help the Senate to resist pressure, at the same time that it would help the liberalising party in the Roman Catholic Church, which he was glad to know was an increasing party, and which was anxious that its clergy should have an education which fitted them to deal with laymen in their future career. Furthermore, it would help the University to be mistress in its own house, as it would not be if there was affiliated to one of its colleges a college infinitely more powerful than the college to which it was affiliated. It had been insisted again and again by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that they could find no restriction such as this in the statutes or the charters creating the newer English Universities. These hon. Gentlemen clamoured for a free University. If any restriction was proposed in a direction which would tend to make the University more undenominational they raised protesting hands to heaven and cried out that the great principle of freedom was outraged. They wanted as he understood, precisely the same charters as were granted to the newer English Universities. It was rather surprising to find hon. Gentlemen opposite clamouring for the application to Ireland of English rules and English precedents. He always thought they were advised by them to consider the special circumstances of Ireland. That was what he did when he said there had never been 524 any English University founded with a full knowledge that immediately the powers granted by the Act could be put in force, the Senate of the University would proceed be affiliate to itself a theological seminary, more powerful than any constituent college of the University. That was why in order to prevent the shifting of the academic centre of gravity from Dublin to Maynooth, it was necessary in respect of Dublin University, and, incidentally also for other reasons, in respect of Belfast University, to secure that those who took the degrees, who would be entitled to vote in its convocation, and would have all the other rights belonging to graduates, should at least have passed some time in the lecture rooms of the University of which they were graduates. The analogy from the newer Universities of England must not be pressed too far, because the new English Universities, practically without exception, had been founded by privately subscribed funds. Here Parliament was paying the piper, and Parliament should have the right to call the tune, at any rate, to the extent of saying that Church music should not be played. The Amendment would not prevent the affiliation of Maynooth. If the University was founded it was desirable that Maynooth should be affiliated, and he hoped it would be, but it should be affiliated on such conditions as would secure that it did not become a sort of Aaron's rod, and swallow up the college to which it was affiliated. The right hon. Gentleman desired a teaching University, and an undenominational University. Here was a simple precaution, which, without injuring the framework of the Bill in the least, would assist to secure that this object should be carried out. He respectfully invited the right hon. Gentleman to accept this safeguard, or failing that, at any rate to leave it to hon. Members of the House, impressed by the attentions of the Government Whips, to express their opinion freely.
*MR. HAY MORGAN (Cornwall, Truro)
in seconding the Amendment said he thought the Chief Secretary, and perhaps Nationalist Members opposite, ought to be very grateful to him for intervening in the discussion and being a kind of buffer between them and the speech of his hon. friend, and giving 525 them a little breathing space. He had never heard a stronger speech dealing with the point at issue than that to which they had just listened. He wanted to deal with the point that by practically excluding students in these affiliated colleges from Dublin and Belfast they were doing the students a grievious injustice. They pretended to offer them the advantages of a University life, but somebody, he did not know who, was preventing them from obtaining those advantages. The hon. Member for Cambridge University had said that if he were put to the choice between the advantages of University life and University teaching, he would unhesitatingly accept University life, and let the teaching go. He was disposed to agree with the hon. Member, and he could not understand why there should be any difficulty in accepting the Amendment. The hon. Member for Waterford had said that nothing was more important for the future of Ireland than that its priests should receive the advantage of University training. It was rather a dangerous thing to offer a commentary upon a speaker when he was present to contradict. He did not know whether the hon. Member was Using the word "training" in contradistinction to the word "teaching," but he would emphasise the advantage of the word "training." He could not close his eyes to the fact that they would have a large number of students from Maynooth and, he hoped, from Magee. In both those colleges they would have the priests and ministers of Ireland training. He agreed that it was absolutely essential that if these gentlemen were to be thoroughly equipped for the work of their life they should have the advantage of a University training, should be able to mix with other than theological students, and should know the world in which they were going to live, and the people they were going to try to benefit. He believed that all these Churches, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, had a salve for their sorrows, but it was not only necessary that they should know the medicine they were going to administer, but that they should also know the patients to whom they were going to administer it. They would have in these theological colleges abundant experience of the communion of saints, and it was a good thing for thorn that they should have a communion of such sinners 526 as medical students and prospective Members of Parliament. They were also dealing with an important part in the training of the character of these young men themselves. On the previous day he had voted against an Amendment, and so severed himself from some of his Nonconformist friends, to confine the number of clerics that could be appointed to the governing body to one quarter of the whole, because he objected to distinctions being made between clerics and laymen. They had in the past put clerics on a pedestal sometimes, and at other times put them in prison. They were always trying to put them on one side as being different from ordinary people. The world would be far better to-day if they would only leave those men to be human beings. If the friendship and the fellowship of University life was a desirable thing for ordinary men, it was more so for priests and ministers. There was no life that a man could live so lonely as the ministerial life. He was cut off in all sorts of ways from the fellowship of other people, and the very fact that the circumstances of his ministerial life kept him away from the ordinary affairs of life had a very narrowing effect on his character, and a blighting effect upon some of the best part of his nature. He was thinking not of the lectures he would attend, but of the fellowship he would have in the playing field and the lecture room. Considering all the weighty circumstances which had been brought before them by his hon. friend, and the personal side which he had touched upon, which appealed very strongly to him, he was amazed that some arrangement had not been made to get rid of this part of the clause. The Bill claimed to create a free University. It would do nothing of the kind if the clause remained as it was. It was this very clause that made the Bill suspect from the Nonconformist point of view. If this could be cleared away there would be no difficulty in voting for the Bill as an absolutely undenominational Bill. The Chief Secretary was charged in this case with being in league with the Catholic hierarchy. He could not believe it. The right hon. Gentleman had always been a champion of equality in matters of religion, and many of his friends in the country looked with suspicion upon this section, as they did upon his introduction 527 of Clause 4 of the Education Bill. The Catholic hierarchy could remove all this suspicion by the expenditure of a few hundred pounds to erect a hostel at Dublin for the Maynooth students, and lie did not think the Catholic hierarchy (if the Chief Secretary were in league with them) would be so mean as to leave their colleague (the Chief Secretary) to bear all the opprobriums of these classes. Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland knew the circumstances of political life in this country. Surely they might have made some effort to assist this change. If a hostel could not be built, why should the students not travel from Maynooth to Dublin each, day? The right hon. Gentleman said they could not send them from Maynooth to Dublin because the train journey took about an hour. He thought things moved a good deal quicker than that in Ireland. If they wanted to go faster why should not they charter a special train day after day, or hire a couple of motor buses? The arrangement of these small details, which sounded so ludicrous in themselves, might have obviated the violation of a great principle. He thought even now something ought to be done either to bring students to the constituent college daily or to give them residence in proximity to the college and so remove a serious blot from the Bill, and render it more acceptable to all sections of the House.
In page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert the words 'and provided that a student in a recognised or affiliated college or institution shall not be entitled to obtain a University degree unless he shall have completed a period of study of not less than two academical years in a constituent college of the University of Dublin or in the University of Belfast.'"—(Dr. Hazel.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
said it was unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman to commence his speech by putting in a plea that he did not intend to be offensive. None of them had ever experienced anything in the nature of offence from the hon. Gentleman. He recognised, considering the strong views which the hon. Member held on this subject, that his speech was free from anything of the kind. They had, however, to recognise the fact 528 so much that the hon. Member was not concerned about the amendment of this Bill, as that he was an enemy of the Bill as a whole. The hon. Member seconded the rejection of the Second Reading and voted against the Bill, and so it was impossible for them to regard his action simply as isolated action asking for an Amendment in a particular direction, but they had to regard him as one who desired to kill the Bill and in fact had done his best to kill it. The hon. member had alluded to his action in Committee upstairs and to the action of the hon. Member for East Mayo. He thought that quite unintentionally the hon. Member had misrepresented the attitude of the hon. Member for East Mayo. It was true that his hon. friend in that speech stated that his ideal would be to have every student in the University a residential student, and further, that he looked forward to the future when it would be possible for students from Maynooth to come and mix freely with the students of the University of Dublin. He also took objection on principle to fettering the freedom of the Senate of the University, and to the attitude he himself took up after the adjournment of the Committee for Whitsuntide. That was not in the smallest degree inconsistent with the speech of his hon. friend a couple of weeks before. He did not speak before the adjournment, and if he had done he would have made precisely the same speech as he did after the adjournment. He took up a question of principle and what was it? It was the broad principle that this University should not be deprived in this matter of affiliation of the freedom which had been conferred upon other Universities created in recent times in this country. But the hon. Member rather unfairly sought to twit those Members on the Irish Benches because they were asking for the privileges contained in the statutes and charters of English Universities, and he said "you are always demanding the right to govern yourselves in Ireland, and now you are asking to apply purely English statutes and charters to Irish Universities." They were asking for nothing of the kind, and they had never asked for that at all. He had never denied that there might be circumstances in connection with Ireland which would necessitate some variation in the statutes. What he claimed was that where perfect freedom had 529 been given to English Universities in this matter of affiliation similar freedom should be given to Ireland. The hon. Member said that he desired that they should have a free University, but to bring that about he was going to tie the hands of the governing body of that University. He said that he desired that the Irish University should be mistress in its own house. It was for that very reason that he (Mr. Redmond) protested against this Parliament in advance tying its hands in a matter where perfect freedom was given to the English Universities. The hon. Gentleman had tried to put aside as of little consequence in his argument the statutes of the Universities in England. But they could not put them aside. They could not say that the freedom given to English Universities should not be given to the Irish University, because by doing that they took up the position that the Irish people were not to be trusted. The Senate of this new University would be an elected body, although the first Senate during the first five years was to be a nominated body and, therefore, they could not take up the position that they were not to be trusted, or that they would be so unmindful of the future prosperity and welfare of their country, and so treacherous to the interests of higher education in Ireland, that the Senate would at once, at the bidding of ecclesiastics or any other body, proceed to make an improper affiliation with some college or institution which ought not to be affiliated at all. To take up that attitude would be taking up a position which was perfectly ridiculous. Was that the attitude which hon. Members took up? He was sure they would be slow to admit it. Both hon. Members who had spoken in support of this Amendment were in favour of Home Rule for Ireland, and he could not understand anyone in favour of Home Rule refusing to trust the Irish people in a matter of this kind. If they believed that the Irish people were fit to govern themselves it followed as a natural course that they must be willing to concede to the governing body of this University as much freedom as they gave to the governing body of English Universities. He would take Leeds for 530 example, the Charter of which in Article 2, Section 8, provided:To accept the examinations and periods of study passed by students of the University at other Universities or places of learning as equivalent to such examinations and periods of study in the University as the University may determine, and to withdraw such acceptance at any time.Section 9.—"To affiliate other colleges or institutions or branches or departments thereof, or to admit the members thereof to any of the privileges of the University, and to accept attendance at courses of study in such colleges or institutions in place of such part of the attendance at courses of study in the University, and upon such terms and conditions and subject to such regulations as may from time to time be determined by the University.The Liverpool Charter in Section 27 (Affiliation and Recognition) provided that—1. The University shall have power by ordinance to adopt as an affiliated college or institution any college or institution which may have attained a standard that shall be deemed satisfactory by the University, and to confer on its teachers and students or any of them such privileges and on such terms as may be from time to time determined to require contributions for University purposes from such college or institution as a condition of affiliation or otherwise to regulate its relations to the University and to determine the number (if any) of the representatives of such college or institution on the Court of the University. But the University shall not have power either by ordinance or otherwise to incorporate with itself any college or institution.4. The University may recognise examinations and attendance upon courses of study whether in an affiliated college or institution or not as wholly or in part qualifying students for graduation.The Birmingham Charter contained the following:—Section 20. Affiliation: 1. The University shall have power to affiliate colleges which may have attained a standard which shall be deemed satisfactory by the University to require contributions for University purposes from such colleges as a condition of affiliation or otherwise, and to make ordinances for regulating their relations to the University, and in particular for regulating the number of the representatives of such colleges on the University Court.Sheffield:—Article 18. The University may upon such terms and conditions, and subject to such regulations as may from time to time be prescribed by ordinances of the University—(a) Admit to affiliation with it or to any of its privileges or recognise for any purpose and either in whole or in part any college or institution, or the members or students thereof, but may not incorporate with itself any college or institution outside the City of Sheffield.531 Manchester:—Article 2, Section 8. To accept the examinations and periods of study passed by students of the University at other Universities or places of learning as equivalent to such examinations and periods of study in the University as the University may determine, and to withdraw such acceptance at any time.Section 9. To affiliate other institutions or to admit the members thereof to any of its privileges, and to accept attendance at courses of study in such institutions in place of such part of the attendance at courses of study in the University, and upon such terms and conditions, and subject to such Regulations as may from time to time be determined by the University.In every single case where they had conferred Universities they had given the power to the governing body which it was now proposed should be refused to the governing body of the new University in Ireland. The hon. Member had reproached him with having said that this Amendment was in the nature of an insult to the Irish people. Did the House understand what he meant when he used that phrase? He said that because he could not conceive of any Radical Member moving such an Amendment except on the ground that they were unfit to be trusted, and if any man took up that stand then it was an insult. That was the broad principle upon which they had been going in resisting this Amendment, and on that broad principle he asked the House to reject it. The discussion had been entirely directed to the question of Maynooth, and he noticed that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke of Maynooth as a purely theological seminary. He did not know whether the hon. Member was aware that there was an Arts faculty there entirely separated from the other faculties, and the students did not commence their Divinity studies until they had been through the Arts course. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo in the words he had used which had been quoted. He would be glad to see all those students mixing up with the lay students in the University, and he believed that probably in the future that would come about. He based that opinion upon the views of certain well known Catholic ecclesiastics in Ireland. But they had for the present to face the fact that it was impossible. If they had a Government grant of £50,000 to build a series of hostels in Dublin that might 532 make a great impression, but under existing circumstances the students could not come up for residence in Dublin. Mark what happened. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment had quoted him as having said that he considered it of the utmost importance that the priests of Ireland should not be deprived of University training. He spoke with the utmost sincerity in saying that. The students in the Arts faculty at Maynooth, although they were not in residence there in a University, were keeping University courses, and were getting University degrees at the Royal University. But the Royal University was about to be abolished. Under existing circumstances they could not go into residence in Dublin, and therefore they were going to deprive the ecclesiastical students of Maynooth of the limited facilities which they had at present for obtaining University education. He could not conceive that anybody with any sense of responsibility would take the view that that was even a possible course for the House to adopt. The Chief Secretary had been twitted with something he said on the Second Reading of this Bill when he spoke about his desire that the students of Dublin University should be Dublin men, and the students of Belfast University Belfast men in the sense that they should be residential students. That might have left the impression that in his Second Reading speech the right hon. Gentleman did not foreshadow any possibility of the affiliation of Maynooth, and that his attitude now was the result of some intrigue and pressure brought to bear upon him. That was a misapprehension, because the right hon. Gentleman said in his Second Reading speech that he contemplated the affiliation of Maynooth; therefore the suggestion that he had given way to pressure on this point was entirely unfounded. He asked the House not to accept the Amendment. It was discussed at great length in Committee in the freest and fullest manner. It was supported by the same arguments as had been put forward that day, and when it went to a division it was defeated by two to one. In Committee the Amendment was proposed by a gentleman who was a friend of the Bill. To-day the Amendment came from an enemy of the Bill who had done his best to defeat the measure, and who would be glad, no doubt, if by the carrying of the 533 Amendment, he was able to defeat the object they all had in view. He asked the House to take a serious view of the situation, and not to be led into a vote which might have a serious effect on the whole of this great project. Not on the question of Maynooth, nor of any other seminary, but on the broad principle that the senate of the University would exercise their rights properly, and that they were entitled to the same freedom which had been freely given to English Universities, he asked the House to reject the Amendment.
§ *MR. BUTCHER
said he moved the Amendment in Committee, and it would be uncandid of him if he did not express his views on the question now before the House. The main argument used against the Amendment was that the Senate of the new University ought to be free to act as it pleased in regard to the conditions of affiliation. The Chief Secretary frequently said upstairs: "We do not know what the Senate may do, we cannot anticipate their action; we merely wish that their freedom should be unfettered." He would ask the House to get rid of make believe and unreality. The truth was that they did not know what the Senate were likely to do, and they were also pretty sure what they would do. The Senate practically was not free to impose any conditions of affiliation in regard to Maynooth if it wished the University to run at all. They must recognise that they had been told beforehand by the authoritative voice of the Bishops that they could not allow their students from Maynooth to go up to Dublin to take an Arts course at the University. There was no use disguising that fact. Therefore, to say that the Senate would be perfectly free and unfettered to affiliate on any conditions it pleased was to his mind simply a refusal to face the facts of the situation. If the affiliation was to be allowed at all on terms such as those it would be allowed only because the hierarchy said they would not have it otherwise. He was in a difficult position. He was in favour of the Bill, and he would deeply regret if it were wrecked; at the same time he owned he did not like this method of commending the proposals to the House of Commons. On the other hand, he could not, looking to the whole previous 534 history of University education in Ireland, shut his eyes to the fact that, the Bishops had it in their power to wreck any measure regarding University education. They could wreck it in two ways. They could wreck a Bill before it passed Parliament, and that had been done thirty years ago. They could also ruin a measure after it had been passed; and anyone who looked back upon the dismal failures of University education in Ireland could not help feeling that it was idle to set up a University on conditions which might lead to the new University being starved or banned, or, at the best, treated with cold neglect, as were the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. And so he paused when he put those considerations together. He never felt in a more difficult position than he did now in regard to the right course to take. It offended all his academic instincts of freedom and all the ideas he held of a University that those two great inroads should be made into the University idea, and into the principles which underlay this Bill—first of all, that residence away from a University was to be equivalent, not in part but in whole, to residence in the University; and secondly, and this was even a greater difficulty to him, the principle that seminary life was equivalent to academic life. Those two principles together did, as it seemed to him, strike a fatal blow at the real academic principles which were otherwise embodied in the Bill. He owned he had brought himself with great difficulty to admit the idea that a seminary ought to be affiliated at all. He believed in principle that a seminary ought not to be affiliated, but looking at the difficulties of the situation and the needs of the case in Ireland, personally he had got over this, and had said to himself, "We will give power to affiliate your theological seminary, but agree to it on condition that the theological students shall pass at least part of their University time in the University in attendance upon lectures." He owned it was difficult for him even to bring himself to that. But when it came to exemption not from part but from the whole period of University residence, and to making seminary life absolutely equivalent to University life, nothing but an intense desire to get some University Bill passed could make him assent to such a principle. Everybody in the House in his heart felt that a seminary and a University belonged to two 535 different orders of things. It was not disparaging to a seminary to say that it was not a University; in its very essence it was different; its fundamental principle was different. It would be very disparaging to a University to say that it was a seminary. They were dealing with two things which were on a totally different plane, and when it was urged as it had been by very high authorities in Ireland that at the seminary of Maynooth they had the principle for which they were contending—the principle of residence and of teaching, and not of mere examination, he replied, Yes, that was all very true; they had residence, but residence of exactly the wrong kind from the University point of view, because it was residence within closed doors, hardly with open windows, in an air sheltered from all public discussion, and shut out from all the influences which a University was designed to develop—all that was implied in comradeship between men of all kinds, no matter what their profession in life; for, after all, freedom of discussion was the very life and soul and breath of a University. So that to make the one thing equivalent to the other seemed to him to go to the very root of the principle which they were attempting to embody in the new University. He rejected in principle the notion of such a residence being in any true sense a University residence. They had made the suggestion, therefore, to the bishops of Ireland, whether they could not accept residence in the University town—residence not in a lay college but in a hostel that was controlled by the bishops themselves, under their own discipline and their own supervision, allowing their theological students to go to the University lectures, and both as regarded study and pastimes, to take a part in that liberal education which ought to be common both to priests and to laymen. The suggestion seemed very reasonable, because it violated no Catholic principle, for the principle of University residence in a hostel was already accepted at Oxford and Cambridge. At Cambridge they had the Benet House for the Benedictines, and St. Edmund's House for the regular clergy. At Oxford both Jesuits and Benedictines joined in the common intellectual life of the University under similar conditions of residence. Dr. Hogan stated in his 536 evidence in 1902 that every professor in the Faculty of Arts at Maynooth was in favour of the Arts students at Maynooth going up to Dublin to study for their University degree. Maynooth students now went through a course of seven years, three years being, given to Arts and four years to theological studies; what they proposed was that of those preliminary years devoted to Arts two out of the three should be spent in the University. In 1901 the Bishop of Limerick, Dr. O'Dwyer, speaking of the immense importance of educating the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, said—Are they never to have a hope of participating in the widening and elevating influences of a University career? Are they to be cut off, as far as it is in the power of English legislation to effect it, from all association during their earlier years with the students of secular knowledge and kept strictly to their ecclesiastical colleges and their own professional studies?So far as it was in the power of English legislation to effect this, English legislation was attempting to undo this wrong and give them the opportunity of participating in those widening influences. And the moment the attempt was made in England, there came from Ireland this absolute refusal to accept the offer given. That was surely very embarrassing for all who wished to help to carry out the higher hopes of thinking Catholics themselves, not merely laymen who thought strongly about this in Ireland, but also some of the most enlightened and ablest bishops in their own Church. From one point of view the proposal that the students of Maynooth should not be obliged to attend the University classes at all might be regarded as a privilege given to clerical externs. No doubt from that point of view it was impossible to defend such a discrimination in favour of the cleric. From another point of view—and he regarded it from this point of view—it seemed to him an educational disability that was put upon the clergy, not by them, but by the authorities of their own Church. From the larger point of view, what could be more unfortunate than the segregation of the clergy and the laity? If there was any country in Europe in which it was important that the clergy should be educated in the best thought of their time and that the clergy and the laity should come together, not only in the cause of religion, but for 537 the sake of the many political and social movements that were in progress, that country was Ireland. So that, from whatever side he regarded it, it came back to him as a matter of profound regret that the authorities in whose hands lay the question of the education of the clergy had been unable to accept this Amendment which was offered, not in any spirit of hostility to their Church—quite the reverse—but in a spirit of good-will to the Church and also of loyalty to the very idea of a University. It had been said that at Maynooth they were getting a University education. But by the necessities of the case the University could not go to Maynooth, though Maynooth might come to the University. If then in obedience to higher decrees they were obliged to accept the unfortunate arrangement permitted under the Bill, then their only hope was a hope in the future. It was a hope which had teen referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and he believed it was a real hope; but it was no assurance, no guarantee. It was merely a hope and nothing more—the hope that rested on a growing feeling within the Church itself, not only on the part of the laity, but of the bishops, that in the interests of the Church it would be impossible much longer to keep the clergy out of the best education of the time. They must console themselves with that hope; but he did not feel any confidence that the change would come immediately. They were told that by degrees, little by little, first a few and then a larger number of students would be brought up to Dublin from Maynooth and take part in the University studies. He trusted that that might be so; and he thought that the opinion of educated men in this country, and above all the opinion of Catholic laymen, both in England and in Ireland, ought to have some influence on those who determined the destinies of Catholic education in Ireland.
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN (Cork)
said it might be imagined that it would not be easy to say anything that was new in this debate. Quite the contrary. He was deeply sensible of the deference shown by the Nonconformist Party in the House during these debates to Irish Catholic feeling, and also, he must say, 538 of the restraint that they had, in general, put upon the no less natural feeling of their own. But it was for that very reason that he thought it a pity that the Member for West Bromwich should have proposed the Amendment which did something to mar and spoil the grace of the Nonconformist attitude towards the Bill, and which if persevered in would wound Irish feeling to the quick. The matter was one which concerned only and solely Catholic religious liberties, and could not possibly involve any religious disability upon others. He imagined that enlightened men of all creeds should have a common interest in giving Maynooth students every possible facility within their own precincts and in their own special atmosphere for liberal and enlightened education, for every man, every statesman with a head on his shoulders, must know and recognise what a great and powerful influence the clergy of all denominations had over the fortunes of the country in every conceivable circumstance. Were they going to offer these facilities only on condition that the students should to a certain extent throw off their character as ecclesiastics and sever themselves from their own religious associations? If in the Bill provision were made for a residential college in Dublin, unquestionably a much stronger case would have been afforded for insisting that every one of the Maynooth students should come up to Dublin and reside in an establishment which would be under grave and orderly management and discipline. It was solely in view of such an establishment that Dr. O'Dwyer, the President of Maynooth, Dr. Delany, and others, gave evidence before the Royal Commission. But they were doing nothing of the kind; they were simply asking Maynooth students for the two mast critical and important years of their lives, to separate themselves from influences of a peculiarly sacred character, and throw themselves into the distractions of a city life. Could hon. Members be astonished, therefore, that the Catholic hierarchy of Ireland should in the most moderate, most reasonable, and most conciliatory language intimate that they could not accept University teaching at such a cost to their ecclesiastical students? The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment 539 had taunted the Nationalist Members that their opposition to the Amendment was based solely on the ground of expense. He thought that was a very unfair representation indeed of the speech which the hon. Member for East Mayo made in Committee. That hon. Member took quite other grounds, and he for one had never based his opposition to the Amendment solely on the ground of expense, important as that was; nor, he must add, merely on the principle of protecting the freedom of the University. There were other grounds. He spoke to men of all Christian persuasions alike, when he said that if there was one feeling of objection more than another to anti-clerical laws, it was the proviso which compelled young ecclesiastical students to quit their seminaries at the very crisis of their lives, and to subject them to the degradations and temptations of barrack life. He did not for a moment suggest that in a city like Dublin, Roman Catholic ecclesiastical students would be exposed to any influences of that kind, through their intercourse with medical and law students in a free University. Quite the contrary. He was sure they would welcome the association with their lay fellow-countrymen. That association was already most free in Ireland in every possible way; but he understood very well indeed the shrinking that, the ecclesiastical authorities quite naturally would have from any disturbance of the life of devotion which was essential to the development of the religious avocation in some of its highest and most delicate phases. He was satisfied that on that matter all hon. Members, no matter what their creeds might be, would be on common ground. The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment blurted out the real apprehension which underlay the Amendment—the apprehension that Maynooth would overrun and overshadow and hypnotise the lay elements in the new University—when he described Maynooth as being an Aaron's rod which would swallow up all the colleges. He did not believe that Irish laymen were plants of such tender growth that they required any artificial exotic aid to enable them to take precious good care of themselves. The notion of Maynooth swallowing up the other colleges was a bugbear. 540 Let him remind the House that Maynooth at the utmost could undertake to contribute 100 to 120 students a year, but this number would be utterly swamped and swallowed up by the 3,000 or 4,000 students which there was every reason to anticipate the constituent colleges would send. Suppose a certain number of Irish bishops and priests did obtain a certain reasonable influence in the government of these colleges, as, of course, they would obtain by the votes of the Irish laymen alone, in the name of all that was liberal and enlightened what could be the harm either to learning or morality that the representatives of the highest forces in national life should have a voice, and a powerful voice, in the government of these great institutions, just the same as laymen or lawyers? He did not really know whether hon. Members had read the very interesting report published by the last Government from the British ambassadors abroad as to the treatment Catholic ecclesiastics received in other countries. He thought they would be rather ashamed of the way in which the Catholic, party was cold-watered and shoved into the background under this Bill compared with the generous treatment they received from almost oil other Protestant countries in the world, including England. In Germany, Hungary, Switzerland, the United States, and in this country, although the Catholics were in a minority the faculty of Catholic theology was freely recognised, and the Universities were governed autonomously by Catholic ecclesiastics. The whole thing was found to work with the best results for liberality and toleration all round. They had been reminded by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that they were pursuing the same system in England almost everywhere. If he was not mistaken there was, at the present moment, passing through the House a Bill for Durham University having its own faculty of theology. That Bill was passing without demur. The Bill now under discussion did not propose to subsidise Catholic teaching by a single shilling, but what they did ask was that a man should not be denied a University teaching merely because he was at the same time receiving religious teaching, with the provision of which the State had 541 nothing to do. They asked in one word that the students of Maynooth should not be excluded from learning and scientific training merely because they were Catholics. They asked the House to remember that this great institution of Maynooth was founded by a Parliament of Protestant Irishmen for the express purpose of enabling the Catholics of Ireland, without quitting their own walls, to obtain means of higher culture. Let it not be said that in this twentieth century they were less liberal in their interpretation of religious liberty than was the Irish Protestant Parliament. In doing a good work he urged them not to stoop to make these petty reservations in a Bill which undoubtedly, if they had fair play, would be the means of striking off the last shackles of sectarian disability. He hoped the House would not reject this clause. If they did it would be a very serious matter indeed, and he was not sure whether in that event, they might not, in the words of the Chief Secretary "go home."
§ *SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)
expressed the hope that he would say nothing to excite religious hostility on either side. He supported the Amendment because he felt that unless something like it was carried the Bill would not effect the object which those who like himself desired to see a Roman Catholic University established, had in their minds. He had always desired that there should be open to the Roman Catholics of Ireland a University in which should be the free and common life, the common studies, and the free interchange of ideas which those who had had the benefit of an English University education had so fully enjoyed. He hoped that this Irish University would gradually build up for itself that character and would create by the associations it left in the minds of its students that sense of corporate life and loyalty which were the features of the Universities of England. If it was possible, as it was under the Bill, that students in large numbers belonging to a separate institution, wholly dissociated from the new University, should be able to take their degrees in the new University without any association with the students who lived in the constituent colleges in Dublin, then it seemed to him that they 542 might as well have admitted the external students. They would be more loyal members of the University than the student contemplated by this Amendment; for this reason, the external student would have a sense of loyalty and obligation to the body from which he had derived his degree and the educational advantages which came from the study for the degree. In this way he was not sure that the external student would not be a more genuine and loyal member of the new University than the student at Maynooth. What would happen in the case of this affiliated institution? The student would live there; would enjoy the common student life of the institution; he would see nothing of the University, would take no part in its studies, its amusements, its life; his only association with it would be the painful one of preparing himself for examination under its rules to obtain his degree. The position of the affiliated student was less desirable for the purpose of creating the strong corporate life which they wished to see in the new University than was that of the external student whom they had dismissed so summarily on the previous night. It was argued that the Amendment would hamper the freedom of the senate and that the English Universities were left free to affiliate other institutions as they pleased, but those who brought forward and contrasted the charters of the old and new Universities with the proposal contained in this Amendment would have done well to have looked at the practice of the old Universities and seen whether it was the practice of those Universities to admit students to their degrees who had taken no part in their studies of life. In his own University they were opening their doors to students who were unable to go through the full course, but who wished to come up for a particular course of study lasting a short period and take away some record of success in that course. They provided for that by conferring diplomas on students who had obtained a certain proficiency in a particular branch of study, but they drew a marked distinction between the diploma and the degree, and they had always maintained that a man who took the Oxford degree should be an Oxford 543 man and that he could not be an Oxford man unless he had resided for eight terms in the University itself. It might be desirable to alter or reduce the terms, but that a student should have shared the life of the University which conferred on him the degree and gave him the imprimatur of a University man seemed to him essential to the character of the University. They were asked why they were suspicious of Maynooth. He thought it was common knowledge that what was contemplated was that Maynooth should be at once affiliated. The very reason that the bishops urged against the Amendment was that it would deprive the Maynooth men of the advantage of taking a degree as they had done at the Royal University. But the Royal University had been condemned on the ground that it did not convey to any of the students any of the advantages of University life. They were founding here a new institution that had to make its way in life, and by its side to claim its degrees they were putting an institution organised and manned with nearly 600 students and eighteen professors, whose government was a strong one and entirely clerical, and whose course of study lasted for seven years. Was it asking too much that, of those seven years, two should be spent in contact with the student life of the new University, so as to ensure that a Maynooth man should be also a Dublin University man, having grateful recollections of the pleasure and benefit he derived from his University career? For anyone to say that to expose these young men to the risk of free life not in a hostel not under special supervision was to expose them to temptation was to put the character of these young men at a very low point.
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN
pointed out that what he said was that the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland and all men would welcome free intercourse in an establishment in Dublin under proper management, but that it was wholly improper to allow clerical students to take part in the life of a great city without some supervision over them.
§ *SIR WILLIAM ANSON
asked whether it was contended that a student who came from Maynooth and who was going 544 back to Maynooth and was under all the serious obligations which he was to that institution and to the holy profession which he was about to enter was too tender a plant to expose to two years free life among the other students of the college. If so, it was putting humanity at a somewhat low level. It was not a very substantial objection, he thought, to the Amendment before the House. Was it reasonable to expect that, with these two institutions side by side, one of many years standing, established, organised numerically strong, the other a nascent society with its future to make, that one would not overshadow and eclipse the other? He had the greatest desire to see this new institution prosper, and it was with that desire and the hope that Roman Catholic clergy and laity might meet in the new University life and be mutually better for the association, and might, as had happened in English Universities, influence each other for good, that he would vote for the Amendment. He recognised the responsibility of so doing, because they were told that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church might put a ban upon the new institution if it were not framed altogether as they desired. But was there no responsibility on the hierarchy if, after members on both sides of the House had made great sacrifices in regard to their religious convictions in an earnest attempt to give education which everybody admitted to be desirable for the higher culture of Irish life, they should make it impossible for the institution to work, because they would not admit that a man intended for the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church could be trusted to live in Dublin for two years in association with other students and under all the influences that could be brought to bear upon them without falling into the evil ways of an evil world?
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he had listened with interest to the two admirable speeches of his hon. friends who had taken up the Amendment which had been pressed upon the Committee by the hon. Member for Cambridge University. They put before the House many academic considerations of considerable value and some importance, but as he 545 listened to their speeches and to that of the hon. Baronet, there were ringing in his ears two famous lines of a famous poem by a famous man who took upon himself to give advice, as he was qualified to do, to scholars. The lines were these—Deign on the passing world to turn thine eyes And pause a while from letters to be wise.What he wanted for himself and for the House, if possible, was to be wise. What was the situation? People had spoken as if this new University were already in existence. It was still a dream, a hope of the future. Its prosperity and its future were still risky things. People had talked of the money which the Treasury had placed at its disposal. He said nothing of those sums; they were large, but would be nothing but a bagatelle. If this University of Dublin were to be anything more than a tin-plate University, it would have to receive, from the generosity of Irishmen and lovers of education, large, and he might almost say gigantic sums before it could affect to compete with such new Universities as those of Leeds, Manchester, and Liverpool. In these days, when modern learning had developed in many directions, the number of chairs in a modern University was large, and the endowment of those chairs, if meagre as far as the occupant of each chair was concerned, would have to be very large indeed It was, therefore, of the utmost importance that this University and that of Belfast should receive large donations, which would be received by the people for whom they were intended with some degree of enthusiasm, pride, and even joy. Everybody, therefore, must look with a considerable amount of anxiety to the future of these Universities. Everybody must agree that if there were one body of men in Ireland more than another upon whom it was desirable to bestow the benefits of a learned education and the advantage of a degree with the dignity pertaining to it, it was the Roman Catholic clergy. To leave those clergy out of the new University of Dublin would be a fatal error. His academic friends said they wished them to come in, but opposed the conditions. They said: "It is for us, breathing the atmosphere of England, to impose the 546 conditions. We cannot trust the Senate of the University to have proper regard to the honour and dignity of the University of which they are trustees. We will impose the conditions and limitations upon which alone the clergy of the Church of Rome are to receive University honours." Was that wise? Did they suppose that, if they passed the Amendment, they would effect their purpose? Did they imagine that the young ecclesiastics of Maynooth would flock into Dublin to the University? If they wanted, by this Amendment, to begin with a quarrel, that would be very far indeed from being wise. Maynooth was a comparatively ancient institution. It was for many years endowed with £26,000 from the pockets of British Nonconformists. The late Mr. Gladstone made a very good bargain, and paid the whole capital sum out of purely Irish money, relieving the Nonconformists of what had been for many years a considerable burden to their consciences. Maynooth had a very considerable reputation. He listened with some surprise to the description given of it by the Member for Cambridge University. The hon. Member spoke of it as a seminary. He did not exactly know what the word meant, but it had a very disagreeable sound, he admitted, in his Nonconformist ears. But suppose they called it a training college for clergy, then his Nonconformist friends might have less difficulty in recognising it. To say that there was no free discussion at Maynooth, to say that nobody ever talked about anything except what was first breathed into his ear by his confessor—well, he was only once at Maynooth, and he discussed almost very subject under heaven, including the character and learning of his hon. friend the Member for the University of Cambridge. He did not deny that, when they were training young men for such a position as that of priests in such a Church as the Church of Rome, and when they remembered that they would be dedicated, the moment they took Orders, to a celibate life, care and delicacy were required in their education. He was not going to enter into a discussion, because it was altogether outside the Bill, as to the benefit which the clergy, let them say of the Church of England, derived from 547 spending a period of their existence before they took Orders at the University of Oxford or Cambridge. There was a good deal to be said in favour of that course, but it was no business of theirs. The question for them was whether, at the outset of the establishment of these two Universities, they were to fix restrictions, in a manner they were unaccustomed to when they were dealing with other Universities, upon the power generally enjoyed by the Senate because they anticipated that they would exercise that power in such a way as to give facilities to the clergy of the Church of Rome to obtain degrees on terms which they could not, as academic persons, wholly approve. Supposing the bishops of the Church of Rome had been very strongly in favour of entering into negotiation for the building of a hostel—and, after all when they talked about the free life of the University, all they meant was that young gentlemen were to be taken from Maynooth for two years, and, instead of living there, to live in a hostel in the neighbourhood of the University, and there to enjoy all the charm of the friendships they would make in the lecture rooms of the University. He made some enemies in the lecture rooms. He was in favour of having a hostel in Dublin, but it was a mistake to run away with the notion that, because they got a hostel in Dublin, they would thereby train up the future clergy of the Church of Rome to the free life and intercourse at present enjoyed by the medical and other students of the colleges in Dublin and other places. Although there was, happily, and in Maynooth in particular, a very strong movement in the direction of some such proposal as was contained in this Amendment, they must leave that spirit to work out itself. At the present moment the bishops, to whom Maynooth belonged, were not prepared to throw open the whole of their doors to their Arts students and say they were at liberty to go up to a University hostel in Dublin. His own feeling was a strong hope that some day they would do so; but this Amendment would not have the effect of making them do so, but precisely the opposite. Shut up their mind against this proposal, and they would begin this new University in Dublin—which he hoped would, in the long years before it, have a glorious, prosperous and useful career—in its early and most 548 troubled days, when it most stood in need of support, moral and financial, with, as he had said, a quarrel, a dispute, with a sense of wrong, because they had deprived the Maynooth people of the opportunities of taking their degree at the Royal University. They had a chance of obtaining degrees at the Royal University after five years. That would be entirely cut off, and, therefore, they would feel that in this great University movement, which they had watched with such eagerness, they, and they alone of all the people of Ireland, were to be left out of its benefits. He therefore objected to the Amendment, not so much because of the academic reasons on which it was founded, but because, so far from favouring the object in view, it would destroy it, and because so far from supporting these new Universities, it would, at the earliest and weakest moment of their existence, deal them an almost deadly blow.
§ MR. HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)
said the Amendment seemed to him a most moderate one, but the right hon. Gentleman had spoken in such a manner as to lead the House to believe that there could be no two sides to the question. He said that to accept the Amendment would be to commence with a quarrel, but with whom would the quarrel be? His right hon. friend was prepared to quarrel with anybody but the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland. When this was suggested in Committee the hon. Member for Waterford read a communication from the Irish bishops as to the effect the Amendment would have, but he thought too much importance had been attached to that communication. It contained a threat, but there was no definite statement in which they said that if the Amendment was accepted the Bill would become useless, and he thought those who wished to give full consideration to the views of the Irish bishops went too far when they assumed that if this moderate Amendment found its way into the Bill the future of the Bill would be jeopardised. It was very extraordinary how those who opposed the Amendment seemed to assume that it would strike a blow at the whole of the studies pursued by the clergy students. It would do nothing of the kind. It only proposed that two years of their Arts 549 course should be spent in a teaching University. What was the use of all those eloquent phrases from his right hon. friend in favour of a teaching University if for the largest portion of the community who were going to receive its degrees they were not to have the advantages of the University as a teaching University? He was told there were 200 Arts students at Maynooth, and was it contended that for a question of the accommodation of 200 students all this objection was raised? Surely it would not tax the consideration of the Roman Catholic Church to make the necessary provision for them. Why could not Maynooth be made a constituent college of the University? He failed to see, if it was all his right hon. friend said it was, why it should not enjoy the advantage of being a constituent college. This Amendment would not deprive clergy students of University training, and if they were to lose their degrees it would be the fault of those who abolished the Royal University. It was not only the clergy students who would lose this right, for there were students now getting degrees from the Royal University from a number of other institutions. Would they not have the same claim for consideration at the hands of the Senate of the University as the Maynooth students had? Why did they impose on other students the necessity of going to Dublin, Cork, or Galway, and only allow this special privilege to a particular college because it happened to be associated with clerical training and under the influence of the bishops? He was struck by the fact that in the whole of the discussion that afternoon everybody had said that the one college to be affiliated was Maynooth, and yet they were constantly told that this would not be a denominational University. If this privilege was such a tremendous necessity for the students at Maynooth, what was going to happen if the Senate of the new Dublin University declined to affiliate or recognise Maynooth College? They did not propose by the Amendment to lay down the principles upon which Irish Roman Catholic clergy students were to be educated, but they Aid say that if they were to have the stamp of University students and all the honours of a University degree, they should have the same duties and respon- 550 sibilities of an undergraduate in a residential University that they imposed on other students.
§ MR. SEDDON (Lancashire, Newton)
said he regretted that the external students were excluded on the previous night, but they were told that because the external student was excluded they were to act upon the same policy as the horse doctor who had got a horse lame in one foreleg and who knocked him lame on the other so that he would run without a limp. The mover of the Amendment stated that the Chief Secretary had kicked out of the front door the student who was not affiliated with Maynooth, but that the Maynooth student was to go in at the side door. He thought they would all agree that this was a very vital Amendment to the Bill, for it meant either the inclusion or the exclusion of the Catholic student according to how they voted on it. Did the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment wish to exclude the Roman Catholic students? If not, he would point out that it was stated emphatically by those who had the power to speak for them that it would have that effect. What did the hon. Gentleman mean by an undenominational college: that it should be without tests? Surely the Bill laid that down clearly. He would also like to ask his Nonconformist friends if they would accept an Education Bill for England without any tests for teachers or students. Surely that was the claim they were making for the English Education Bill, and if it applied in England they need have no great fear that, with no tests for professors or students, any great danger would come so far as Maynooth College was concerned. He had discovered, so far as he had been able to follow the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, a latent fear of Roman Catholicism. He himself had got no such fear. The Bill was framed on democratic lines, and while he was strongly opposed to clericalism, if his creed in a democratic atmosphere could not stand by itself, then so much the worse for his creed. He had every confidence that if this Bill was carried the association of cleric and laymen would be for the benefit of higher education in Ireland, and he therefore hoped and 551 trusted that Nonconformists who were anxious for higher education in that country would not do anything to jeopardise the Bill by supporting the Amendment, but that they would support the Chief Secretary.
§ *MR. J. M. ROBERTSON (Northumberland, Tyneside)
said he wished to urge one or two political considerations in a debate which had run too much to academic considerations on one side, and theological considerations on the other. The Chief Secretary had pointed out that the House was not entitled to settle such a question on the basis of such purely academic considerations; and he would like to urge on the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment, and on those who supported it, that they were in fact seeking to apply to Ireland a counsel of perfection which had never been applied to England. The hon. Member for Cambridge University, who drew such an attractive picture of an ideal University, was not describing any University which existed. He did not know whether there was anything special in the atmosphere of Maynooth, but he would suggest that there was no ecclesiastical chair in this country which gave the ideal teaching which the hon. Member held out as that which ought to be given in every University. He did not think that the supporters of the Amendment realised that their principle if carried to its logical conclusion would exclude—and it was
§ this which he called a counsel of perfection—all theological chairs from Universities, for this reason, that all theological teaching was preordained teaching, and was incompatible with the ideal modern University. Those who supported this Amendment were all willing to begin to apply to Ireland an extremely high principle in these matters, when no such principle had been applied to England. Stress had been laid by one hon. Member upon the suggested danger of the students of Maynooth becoming graduates and swamping the new Dublin University. Every English and Scottish University was swamped by clerical graduates. In face of that state of things—he did not in the least approve of it—he did not wish to see imposed on the Irish people a counsel of perfection which had never been applied to England and Scotland. The proper way, of course, to settle the Irish University question would have been to give Ireland Home Rule, and let the Irish people settle it themselves. But in this matter the Irish people and the Government were in agreement in proposing a measure which was at least a marked improvement on the state of things that had gone before, and he should strongly deprecate his hon. friends supporting a principle which had never been applied in their own land.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 216. (Division List No. 218.).555
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Craik, Sir Henry||Lynch, H. B.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J.(City Lond.)||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||McArthur, Charles|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Esslemont, George Birnie||Massie, J.|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester)||Fell, Arthur||Moore, William|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)||Glendinning, R. G.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Morse, L. L.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Gordon, J.||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Griffith, Ellis J.||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hamilton, Marquess of||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hedges, A. Paget||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hill, Sir Clement||Ridsdale, A. E.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Holt, Richard Durning||Robinson, S.|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Clough, William||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Sears, J. E.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.||Lamont, Norman||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Cooper, G. J.||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Starkey, John R.|
|Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Valentia, Viscount||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Dr. Hazel and Mr. Hay Morgan.|
|Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Gill, A. H.||Murnaghan, George|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Gulland, John W.||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Myer, Horatio|
|Allan, A. Acland(Christchurch)||Halpin, J.||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Barnes, G. N.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)||O'Brien, William (Cork)|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Harrington, Timothy||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Beale, W. P.||Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E.)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Boland, John||Hazleton, Richard||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Healy, Timothy Michael||O'Dowd, John|
|Brace, William||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Grady, J.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Henry, Charles S.||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Bright, J. A.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||O'Malley, William|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Hodge, John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Brunner, Rt, Hn Sir J. T. (Chesh.)||Hogan, Michael||O'Shee, James John|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Horniman, Emslie John||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hudson, Walter||Partington, Oswald|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas'||Hyde, Clarendon||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Illingworth, Percy H.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Cameron, Robert||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Chance, Frederick William||Jordon, Jeremiah||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Jowett, F. W.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Joyce, Michael||Reddy, M.|
|Cleland, J. W.||Kavanagh, Walter M.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Kearley, Sir Hudson E.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Kekewich, Sir George||Rees, J. D.|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Kettle, Thomas Michael||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Kilbride, Denis||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Laidlaw, Robert||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Crean, Eugene||Lambert, George||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Cullinan, J.||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Lehmann, R. C.||Rowlands, J.|
|Delany, William||Lewis, John Herbert||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lundon, W.||Seddon, J.|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)|
|Dillon, John||Lyell, Charles Henry||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Duckworth, James||Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Duffy, William J.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Symth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Snowden, P.|
|Erskine, David C.||M'Kean, John||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||M'Killop, W.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Mallet, Charles E.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Marnham, F. J.||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Masterman, C. F. G.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Meagher, Michael||Summerbell, T.|
|Field, William||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Findlay, Alexander||Meehan, Patrick A.(Queen's Co.)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Middlebrook, William||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Molteno, Percy Alport||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Gardner, Ernest||Mooney, J. J.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Gilhooly, James||Morpeth, Viscount||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Toulmin, George||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Waterlow, D. S.||Young, Samuel|
|Verney, F. W.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Waldron, Laurence Ambrose||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.|
|Walters, John Tudor||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Wardle, George J.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
§ MR. SPEAKER
The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Antrim seems to me to have been disposed of in the decision the House has come to; and the two Amendments standing in the names of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-East Down go beyond the scope of the Bill.
§ *MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)
moved to omit the words "requiring the Commissioners to frame a declaration for professors," and insert the following declaration: "I, A. B., do hereby promise that I will faithfully, and to the best of my ability, discharge the duties of professor, and I further promise and engage that in lecturing and examining, and in the performance 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 opinion of any portion of my class." It was proposed by the Bill that the form of declaration should be decided by the Commissioners. He did not wish to detain the House by repeating the arguments which had been used in Committee, but he desired that this declaration should be in the Bill. It had been enforced at the Queen's Colleges for forty years, and in regard to it he had never heard any complaint. Those who supported the Amendment were anxious that it should be retained, and they saw no reason why it should not be. They preferred that it should be inserted in the Bill rather than that it should be left to the Commissioners to decide.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)
, in seconding the Amendment, said that as the debate proceeded the statement which they had made from the beginning was more and more confirmed in its accuracy, namely, that this was an absolutely denominational University which was proposed to be set up in 556 Dublin. Indeed he thought it would be quite safe to say that every Member of that House now admitted, if not openly, in his innermost heart, that this was an absolutely denominational institution. In regard to the southern University, if there was to be the slightest hope of those who were in a minority using the free constituent colleges of the University at all, it would be necessary to put in something which would guard those persons' religious opinions very much more effectually than would the ridiculous proposal contained in subsection 2 of Clause 3. He would read that subsection, and ask hon. Members what it meant—Every professor upon entering into office shall sign a declaration in a form approved by the Commissioners under this Act, securing the respectful treatment of the religious opinions of any of his class.There was no meaning in that whatever. The right hon. Gentleman, he understood, objected to the proposal of his hon. friend, and he had informed them in Committee that he did not know what revealed religion was. He did not say that he knew a very great deal about it himself, but he did know that the persons who, forty or fifty years ago, set the Queen's Colleges on their course, had adopted the formal declaration contained in the Amendment, and ever since it had done good work and had done exactly what was intended. He had never heard any exception taken to it at all until they got into Committee on this Bill. The words contained in the Amendment would have a much more intimidatory effect than the milk-and-water-phrase, "respectful treatment of religious opinions" contained in the Bill. In any case, supposing it was admitted that the form proposed to be inserted in the Bill was not approved, and was not sufficiently clear, what was to happen in regard to the person making a statement derogatory to true revealed religion? At any rate, the form which his hon. friend proposed was a stronger 557 prohibition than that contained in the Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman desired to protect the religious feelings of all persons attending the University he could not think that he would have the slightest objection to allowing this to be substituted for Subsection 2, which would not be of the slightest use.
In page 2, line 36, to leave out from the word 'sign,' to end of subsection (2) of Clause 3, and insert the words 'I, A. B., do hereby promise that I will faithfully, and to the best of my ability, discharge the duties of professor, and I further promise and engage that in lecturing and examining, and in the performance 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 opinion of any portion of my class.'"—(Mr. Barrie.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'under' in page 2, line 37, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he was afraid he would be out of order if he embarked on a discussion as to the precise meaning of the words just read out. So far as he was personally concerned, he had never disguised his opinion that it would be much better to have no such declaration at all, for the reasons which had been so admirably stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. Such declarations only acted as a handicap on professors in the free discharge of their duties, and gave opportunity to litigiously disposed persons, or ignorant persons, who might be minded to give some trouble. Therefore, he himself was desirous to have no declaration at all. However, these declarations had extended for so long in Ireland that they were bound to retain something of the kind. There was a feeling that some test should be applied to the good manners of the professors. Everybody agreed that no professor would ever speak disrespectfully of any religious opinions which might be held by a member of his class. Therefore, he had handed over to the very highly educated body of commissioners, who were much better versed, in passing such declarations, the 558 duty of proposing a form which would discharge this test of good manners and secure respectful treatment of the religious opinions of members of the class. Certainly that was the only object, and he declined altogether to accept the proposal to reinstate the declaration upon which he would say no more than that it imposed no real test in any shape or form, and seemed to him, at all events, to be almost useless.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said he would draw the attention of hon. Members opposite to the fact that it was sought to make subsection 2 of Clause 3 more stringent and to put a further restriction on liberty; and, further, that all these proposals came from hon. Members above the gangway, who were claiming to have a thoroughly undenominational University, and yet asked for further restriction on the liberty of the teachers.
§ MR. MOORE (Armagh, N.)
said that this Amendment involved a good deal more than a mere question of good manners, as the right hon. Gentleman described it. The words of the Government were to "secure respectful treatment of religious opinions of members of the class." He did not call that a matter of good manners at all; he thought that it was much more a matter of principle.
§ MR. MOORE
said that perhaps even more important than good manners was the question of principle. The question was whether the House would settle the terms of the declaration. Hon. Members ought to remember that it was no new limitation which was proposed; it was passed by Parliament in the year 1846 or 1847, and it had continued to be acted upon ever since. Parliament was simply asked now to carry out the existing protection for the religious opinions of the minority. He asked the House to take the matter into its own hands and give protection to the minority in the class, so that their religious opinions might be recognised as a matter of principle, and not merely as one of good manners.
§ Question put.560
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 29. (Division List No. 219.)561
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Farrell, James Patrick||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Well, Charles Henry|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Ffrench, Peter||Lynch, H. B.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Field, William||Macdonald, J. R.(Leicester)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Findlay, Alexander||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Flynn, James Christopher||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Fuller, John Michael F.||Maclean, Donald|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Gardner, Ernest||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Gilhooly, James||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Beale, W. P.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Glendinning, R. G.||M'Hugh, Patrick A.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||M'Kean, John|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Boland, John||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Killop, W.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Griffith, Ellis J.||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Brace, William||Gulland, John W.||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Marnham, F. J.|
|Bright, J. A.||Halpin, J.||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||Massie, J.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Meagher, Michael|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Harrington, Timothy||Middlebrook, William|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Mooney, J. J.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Haworth, Arthur A.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hayden, John Patrick||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Cameron, Robert||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Morse, L. L.|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Hazleton, Richard||Murnaghan, George|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Henry, Charles S.||Myer, Horatio|
|Chance, Frederick William||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hill, Sir Clement||Nolan, Joseph|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hodge, John||O'Brien, William (Cork)|
|Clough, William||Hogan, Michael||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Holt, Richard Durning||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Horniman, Emslie John||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hudson, Walter||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||O'Dowd, John|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Grady, J.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.|
|Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||O'Malley, William|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||O'Shee, James John|
|Crean, Eugene||Jordan, Jeremiah||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Cullinan, J.||Jowett, F. W.||Partington, Oswald|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Joyce, Michael||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Kavanagh, Walter M.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Delany, William||Kearley, Sir Hudson E.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Devlin, Joseph||Kekewich, Sir George||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Dewar, Sir J.A.(Inverness-sh.)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Dillon, John||Kilbride, Denis||Radford, G. H.|
|Donelan, Captain A.||King, Alfred John(Knutsford)||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Duckworth, James||Laidlaw, Robert||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Duffy, William J.||Lambert, George||Reddy, M.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Redmond, John E.(Waterford)|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Lamont, Norman||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Rees, J. P.|
|Erskine, David C.||Law, Hugh: A. (Donegal, W.)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Lehmann, R. C.||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Lewis, John Herbert||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Lundon, W.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)||Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan)|
|Robinson, S.||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Roche, Augustine (Cork)||Steadman, W. C.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Roche, John (Galway, East)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Strachey, Sir Edward||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Rowlands, J.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Summerbell, T.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Sutherland, J. E.||Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n)|
|Sears, J. E.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Seaverns, J. H.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Tenannt, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverh'mpt'n)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Silcock, Thomas Ball||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Toulmin, George||Young, Samuel|
|Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Verney, F. W.|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Waldron, Laurence Ambrose||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.|
|Snowden, P.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Stanger, H. Y.||Wardle, George J.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gordon, J.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hamilton, Marquess of||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Starkey, John R.|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)||M'Arthur, Charles||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Moore, William||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Hugh Barrie and Mr. Lonsdale.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Fell, Arthur||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
In page 2, line 37, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the word 'jointly.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.)
moved the omission of subsection 3 of Clause 3. The clause was entitled "Prohibition of tests" and subclause (1) laid it down that there was to be no test whatever of religious belief imposed on any person as a condition of becoming or continuing to be a professor, lecturer, fellow, scholar, exhibitioner, graduate, or student. Subsection 3 removed the teachers and professors of theology from the operation of the clause in regard to tests. The object of his Amendment was to restore the Bill to the condition in which it was when it passed Second Reading and to make the prohibition of tests run continuously throughout all faculties alike. He did not know that the precaution against tests was less necessary in the theological than in any other faculty. The Chief Secretary, 562 speaking of these Universities on the First Reading said—They are not denominational institutions. They are not marred or disfigured by tests of any sort or kind.He did not give a definition of denominational or undenominational, but apparently he considered the absence of any disfigurement or marring by tests of any kind or sort essential to undenominational institutions. That should apply in the theological faculty as in any other. They had been told that these were to be as undenominational as other Universities which had recently been created in the United Kingdom. He had looked at the charters of these recently created bodies and did not find in any of them, where the prohibition of tests was laid down, that there was any subclause removing the theological faculty from the general operation of the prohibition against tests. It ought not to be so in this particular case, and they should be in the same position as these recently created Universities. One was not quarrelling with the existence of theological faculties or with the recognition of teachers 563 in theological colleges, or with students graduating in theology, but when it became a question of a University appointment giving the style and status and authority of a professor, no test ought to be applied to any candidate for the post. He apprehended that the object of the appointment of a professor, even of theology, was the implanting of knowledge rather than the inculcation of any particular formulary, creed, or belief, and, as they separated tests of faith from tests of knowledge there ought not to be in the case of a professor of theology any inquisition into the particular views he held. He was there to impart knowledge and not to inculcate any particular belief. He hoped and trusted the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Bill to be restored to its original condition and thereby would be able to claim once again that these institutions were not marred or disfigured by any test of any sort or kind.
*MR. HAY MORGAN
, in seconding, pointed out that the promoters of the Bill could accept the Amendment without in the slightest degree interfering with the essence of their demand. The professorship of theology was not in the appointment of these Universities. The chair was to be founded by private benefaction, and one might be well assured that the private benefactor would do all that was necessary by way of discovering that the religious opinions of the person whom they offered to the University were of the shade or colour that was most desired. The tested professor was presented to the University. This subsection would enable, if it was so desired, the governing body of the University to test the poor man again. What was the object of putting it in if it was not to enable the governing body of the University to impose another test upon the theological professor? Why not leave the governing body perfectly free of the matter, as they would be with regard to the other Professorships in the University so far as the imposition of a religious test was concerned. He could not understand any Nonconformist Member voting in favour of the retention of the subsection.
In page 2, line 40, to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 3."—(Sir W. Collins.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. DILLON
thought the Amendment was moved in an entire misconception of the effect of the subsection. The hon. Gentleman who had seconded the Amendment had said that these appointments, if they were ever made, would not be University appointments at all. The provisions of the Bill made it absolutely clear that the University could appoint no professors of theology of any religious creed. When the Bill was being read a second time the Chief Secretary for Ireland said distinctly that he looked forward to seeing the departments of theology in the colleges in the course of the future founded altogether by private endowment. The way in which that would work out as they understood it was, as in the case of Universities in this country, that the Chair would be endowed, presumably by adherents of one form of religion, under a deed of trust which would set forth all the conditions of the appointment to the Chair. They would then offer the Chair to the University, which would inspect the deed of trust and examine all the circumstances connected with the appointment to the Chair, and, if they found nothing objectionable in it, would accept the professor. But it did not follow from that, nor would it ever follow in the natural course that the University would have the appointment, then or in the future, of the Professor of Theology. He would be appointed under a deed of trust by the founders of the Chair and their successors. That was the only way he believed in which faculties of theology could arise in connection with the Universities under this Bill. There was the most absolute liberty to any body or religious creed to endow professorships of theology or any subject connected with theological study. But it was doubtful whether it might not be held that in a deed of trust certain religious formularies, which were not uncommon 565 in these matters, he believed, making certain provisions part of the deed of trust, might not put coercion on the University to say: "We refuse to accept this professorship because there are certain conditions in the deed of trust." That was the whole effect of the clause.—to set free the hands of the University—to leave it absolutely free to accept a professorship, founded by private endowment, under such conditions, or not. That was the whole effect and he could not imagine that any objection could be taken to it. Not one farthing of public money under any circumstances was involved.
§ MR. BUTCHER
thought the account which the hon. Member for East Mayo had given was perfectly correct. The subsection should be read in connection with Clause 7, subsection 4 (c) which provided that Chairs of theology might be instituted by private benefaction. The University did not itself appoint these Chairs, but the University might recognise any professor in theology appointed by a private trust. Unless there was some such provision as this, no professor of theology could be recognised. In the Catholic church a professor of theology could not be a person appointed without a test, and the only question was, could there be a faculty of theology in these Universities or not. In his opinion they ought to have the power, that all Universities that he knew of had, of having a faculty of theology. In foreign Universities there were sometimes three faculties of theology in the same University.
§ MR. BIRRELL
quite agreed with the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. It was never intended that the section should enable a University to apply any test to any privately endowed chairs, and if any words were required to make it plain, he would consider them, but he thought it was all right as it stood. The clause said that no test should be imposed on any person. Then some kind person endowed a Chair of Catholic theology or Protestant theology, or what was better still, of true theology. They appointed a certain number of electors who were the proper persons to fill the Chair when it became vacant. The University had 566 no concern with it. He did not know whether they would impose a test or not. He held tbat every professor of Catholic theology had to make a declaration at some time of his fitness for the post, but the University would not concern itself in any way with it, or impose any test on him. Some such words as these were necessary, because obviously in the case of a professor of theology, it would be rather difficult to impose on him a declaration that he was never to say anything that in any way interfered with the religious opinions of other persons. It was his duty to expound theology, and some theological opinion might possibly be treated as disagreeable or untrue by some person listening to him. Although he was quite prepared to consider whether there was any dubiety, let them all be agreed that it was the intention of the Act not to impose any test upon anyone who occupied the status of a professor. A privately-endowed Chair was filled by a person who, perhaps, had submitted at some time to the test of fitness to be a candidate for the Chair. He then became a professor of the University. Thereupon, someone rose up and said: "Here is a professor of the University, and yet a test has been submitted to him." It was in order to avoid a controversy of that kind that these words were inserted, and he thought they were necessary.
§ *SIR W. J. COLLINS
said that so long as the words to which he had taken exception remained in the clause he must press his Amendment.
§ MR. MASSIE
said the words of the clause appeared to bring the University within the range of applying a test to professors. Surely they could have some words put in to make it clear that no test was intended.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he was quite prepared to consider that point, and meet it in another place if it was found to be necessary. He would undertake that there should be no test whatever.
§ *SIR W. J. COLLINS
said that on the understanding that no religious test would be applied to any candidate for a 567 University appointment, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In page 3, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'withhold his assent from,' and to insert the words 'disallow.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. BUTCHER
said the Amendment he had to propose had for its object to secure that in the case of University statutes there should be an appeal to the Privy Council. The procedure was contained in Clause 5, and it was provided that the statutes were to be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament. His purpose was to secure that in the case of an alteration of the statutes or the adding of any new statutes there should be an effective appeal to the Privy Council, and in doing that the House would only be following University precedents. There was such an appeal in the case of the statutes of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London, the Scottish Universities and also in the more modern Universities of Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds, where he found that no Amendment could have any effect until it was allowed by a Committee of the Privy Council. He wanted to secure that the Irish statutes for the new Universities should receive the same consideration and have the same safeguard. It would be observed that he proposed an appeal to a committee of the Irish Privy Council. There was in England a Universities' Committee of the Privy Council and also a Scottish Committee of the Privy Council, but there was no such thing existing in Ireland, although he did not think there would be any difficulty in forming a Committee of the Irish Privy Council for the purpose of considering any statute. He begged to move.
§ MR. MOORE
said he wished to second this Amendment for the reasons which had been put forward by his hon. friend. This proposal might avoid a hardship being placed upon some outside body. Take for example the Royal College of Surgeons. If a statute was made which might affect the right they enjoyed as a 568 corporation in respect to their students there was under the Bill as it stood at present no provision by which they could obtain redress except the cumbrous one of coming to this House and moving to alter a regulation which had been laid on the Table. It was desirable that they should have a local Court of Appeal on the spot, and, following the example of the London University, if such an appeal were allowed it would be useful to redress any grievance, and it was the only remedy which an outside corporation had against the statute.
In page 3, line 35, at the end, to insert the words '(3) The governing body of a university or constituent college to which this Act applies, or any other person, corporation, or body directly affected by such statute, may, within three months from the notification thereof in the Dublin Gazette, petition His Majesty in Council to disallow the whole or any part thereof. (4) His Majesty in Council may refer any such petition to a Committee of the Privy Council in Ireland with a direction that the Committee hear the petitioner personally or by counsel, and report specially to His Majesty in Council on the matter of the petition. (5) If the Committee report in favour of the disallowance of the statute or any part thereof, His Majesty may, by Order in Council, disallow the whole or part thereof accordingly, but any such disallowance shall be without prejudice to the making of a new statute. (6) The costs of any petition hereunder may be regulated by the Committee to which the petition is referred.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that there was agreement as to the form of appeal recognised in most of the other Universities. His only difficulty, however, in accepting the Amendment was that there was not in the Privy Council a body corresponding to the Universities Committee. He did not know whether there would be any difficulty in setting up a Universities Committee of the Privy Council here, but if those who knew Ireland better than he knew it were of opinion that this step could be taken, then the Amendment, of course, would be only following precedent. At the present time he was not quite in a position to accept it, but, subject to communications from Ireland on the subject, he would be willing to consider the introduction of the Amendment elsewhere.
§ MR. BUTCHER
thought the Chief Secretary might have accepted this Amendment off-hand. Up to the present the right hon. Gentleman had not accepted a single Amendment on the Paper.
§ MR. BUTCHER
said that in another part of the Bill an arrangement had been made for an appeal to the Irish Privy Council, and looking at the large number of distinguished men who formed that Council there ought to be no difficulty in getting some of the Judges and others to serve on a committee. As the Chief Secretary had promised to look into the matter he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
moved an Amendment in Clause 6 (Establishment of Commissions) providing for the representation of "a person nominated by the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, and a person nominated by the Royal College of Science, Dublin." He had put this Amendment down in order to see whether the right hon. Gentleman could give him any more information about the Royal College of Surgeons. He thought they ought to have representatives from the two bodies named in his Amendment upon the governing body in connection with these Universities. He begged to move.
In page 4, line 2, after the first word of, to insert the words 'a person nominated by the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, and a person nominated by the Royal College of Science, Dublin, and.'"—(Mr. Charles Craig.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that he had already declared why he had found it impossible to make all the appointments those of representative persons. The Royal College of Surgeons had waited on him and the Prime Minister in order to lay their case before them as to the effect of competition with the new University. The colleges had no need to be alarmed, and the Prime Minister, who was an emotional man, said that he would look into the subject. The 570 other day, in answer to a Question, he stated that the charters would provide, for a full recognition of their schools and classes, and in that sense they would not be damnified by the establishment of the new University. It was also stated that if it were proved after a time they had suffered materially by the competition it would be a subject for the favourable consideration of the Exchequer.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
said there was considerable sympathy with the College of Surgeons, but he thought the statement of the Prime Minister had gone a long way to allay any anxiety. He regarded the concession as a valuable one.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
said the Chief Secretary had not given them a definite undertaking or a pledge on this point. He had simply told them that if, in years to come, the Royal College of Surgeons found that it had been detrimentally affected by the operation of the new University their case would be considered. Personally he was inclined to go to a division in order to emphasise this point. When they placed a new University alongside the Royal College of Surgeons it stood to reason that they would inflict a very serious injury upon that College. Under the circumstances he would be satisfied with his protest, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BIRRELL
moved in Clause 6, after the word "period" to insert the words "not exceeding one year." It was thought desirable that there should be a limitation upon the period during which the Commissioners should exercise their power.
In page 5, line 4, after the word 'period,' to insert the words 'not exceeding one year.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
moved to leave out Clause 7, which, he said, carried out the money Resolution passed n Committee of the House. He took exception to the unfair way in which the moneys were allocated. Neither the schedule nor the clause put any limit 571 on the sum which might be paid towards the southern University. The Bill was wrong all through. In regard to finance the country was asked to spend a sum of money for which it was to get no adequate value. In spite of the large sum which was to be spent not a single man would get a better education than he could get at present, and not a single man would get a degree who could not get it now. What they were asked to spend on this project made it far too dear. If the Chief Secretary had never interfered in Irish education the country would have been £2,700,000 richer than it was to-day. Clause 7 was the worst clause in the worst possible Bill that had ever been presented to the House in regard to University education in Ireland. There was no question in the world about that. He felt so strongly opposed to this clause that, if he were the only person in the lobby, he would go to a division. He begged to move.
§ MR. MOORE
, in seconding the Amendment, said that Clause 7 contained some matter which it would be more difficult for the followers of the Government to swallow than some of the other matters in the Bill, because with the full concurrence of the Chief Secretary power was given to applying public money to the purchasing of sites in the proposed University and to the building of denominational places of worship. It also authorised that the class rooms and lecture rooms might be applied to the teaching of a particular religion. They were told at the same time that the scheme was entirely undenominational, and he had no doubt that they would be told so again by the Chief Secretary. He concurred with what his hon. and gallant friend had said upon the financial side of the question. It always happened when this Government had to treat the conflicting claims of north and south in the distribution of money the excessive claims of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway representing southern constituencies received chief consideration.
To leave out Clause 7."—(Captain Craig.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word "sums" in page 5, line 15, stand part of this Bill."572
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said he wondered if the hon. and learned Gentleman when he walked up Whitehall veer contemplated the beautiful buildings which had been put up at the cost of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Gentleman had voted for the erection of the Government offices in London for which the money was found out of the general taxation, though they were of absolutely no benefit to Ireland. The sum of £10,000,000 had been spent in that way. There was one of the buildings alone which he never looked a without feeling a land hunger, for it cost £3,000,000. He entirely deprecated the suggestion that the south of Ireland would deprive the north of anything it was entitled to, or that hon. Gentlemen who represented the Presbyterian cause, in the north were to be deprived of a single sixpence which they could get out of the Treasury. On the contrary, the more they got the merrier he and his friends would be. It was entirely unfair to say that in the south they were getting any superior sum. But if it were true, they could not forget the fact that the Catholics of Ireland were three-fourths of the people. What he complained of was that the financial proposals of the Bill, instead of being too large as the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated, were a little too tight. Subsection (2) of the clause said—There shall be annually paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for the general purposes of the new university having its seat at Belfast, and the constituent colleges of the new university having its seat at Dublin, the sums specified in Part I. of the Third Schedule to this Act.The hon. and learned Gentleman argued from that that the schedule gave unlimited power. The truth was that the schedule was too tight. Supposing they needed more money, they would be prevented by the Bill as it stood from getting it. What was really wanted was a rather looser framework than this clause. He had not the smallest doubt that the University in Belfast would be a great success. It would be one of the greatest glories of the north, and it would come back to Parliament for more money. He would advise the hon. and gallant Gentleman, instead of putting further fetters on the Government, to endeavour to get the clause made a little looser. In 573 three or four years time all this religious fighting and wrangling would have entirely evaporated on both sides and they would be knocking at the door of this House and asking for more money.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ *MR. MASSIE
moved to amend the proviso of Clause 7 by inserting after the word "benefactions," the words "and so long as the professorship or lectureship is titular only, and does not admit to the electoral, representative, or administrative powers of the ordinary professors or lecturers of the university, whether as to the senate or the academic council or the general board of studies or any faculty except the faculty of theology, if and when such is constituted" He observed that the Chief Secretary had to some extent met the Amendment by the revised charter for the University to have its seat in Dublin, Section xiv (4) of which now reads as follows:—"A professor of or lecturer in theology shall not be eligible for membership of the general board of studies or of any faculty other than the faculty of theology." If the right hon. Gentleman would put what he had read from the charter into the Bill as well he would be perfectly prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
In page 5, line 37, after the word 'benefaction,' to insert the words 'and so long as the professorship or lectureship is titular only, and does not admit to the electoral, representative, or administrative powers of the ordinary professors or lecturers of the university, whether as to the Senate or the academic council or the general board of studies or any faculty except the faculty of theology, if and when such is constituted.'"—(Mr. Massie.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he deprecated very much any war on the question of theology. He did not see any reason why a professor of theology should be treated with more suspicion than any other kind of professor. He had no objection to the words of the charter to which his hon. friend referred being inserted in the Bill, but he did not quite know which would be the best place to insert the Amendment. Perhaps his hon. friend would allow it to be inserted in another place.
§ *SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University)
asked whether there was anything to prevent a professor of an ordi- 574 nary subject, say, mathematics or mental and moral philosophy, from holding at the same time a professorship of theology provided that he did not take any money for the discharge of the duties in connection with the professorship of theology.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. HOLT (Northumberland, Hexham)
moved an Amendment to provide that in the event of any professor or lecturer being recognised under subsection (4) of Clause 7 the governing body of the University should not refuse recognition on equal terms to other professors or lecturers in theology or divinity on the ground of their theological opinions. It had always been understood that this was an unsectarian and undenominational University, and that under this Bill there would be absolute liberty for any person to endow chairs of theology. He wished to put that down in black and white. He understood the hon. Member for East Mayo to say that he and his hon. friends who represented the Catholics of Ireland were in favour of that equality of treatment. There were other people in Ireland besides Catholics and Presbyterians, and he wished to keep the door open to them so that they might have the same advantages.
In page 5, line 41, after the word 'funds,' to insert the words 'and in the event of any professor or lecturer being recognised under this subsection the governing body of the University shall not refuse recognition on equal terms to other professors or lecturers in theology or divinity on the ground of their theological opinions.—(Mr. Holt.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BIRRELL
did not think it would be wise to compel any University to 575 receive a chair in theology or divinity simply because it was offered. It was obvious they must exercise some control over their chairs and faculties, and it might possibly be that someone interested in the propagation of some theological opinion of his own might grant money for the purpose of a professorship which would obviously make any learned body ridiculous were they to accept it. He, therefore, could not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. MOORE
expressed the hope that the mover of the Amendment would go to a division. He moved this Amendment in the Committee upstairs and they got an equally halting and unsatisfactory reply then. If a Roman Catholic professorship was recognised in the new Dublin University, and if the money was forthcoming, it was right, at any rate, that provision should be made for giving similar recognition to professorships in connection with the Protestant denominations of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Christian Science, for ex-
§ ample."] The conditions being equal, he thought it would be right for the governing body to consider and decide whether "Christain Science" came within the definition of "theology or divinity." It would be a thoroughly unfair thing to allow the governors to recognise a chair of theology or divinity for one church and not for another. In Belfast there would probably be Presbyterian and Episcopalian professorships of theology endowed out of private sources, but if the governing body did not give equal treatment to Roman Catholics, the bishops and the priests would come out again with the cry that it was a Godless University. He wished to have equal treatment for all churches.
§ Leave refused.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 41; Noes, 260. (Division List No. 220.)577
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Gordon, J.||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hamilton, Marquess of||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Bull, Sir William James||Holt, Richard Durning||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Clark, George Smith||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grnst'd)||M'Arthur, Charles|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Mallet, Charles E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Hugh Barrie and Captain Craig.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)|
|Fell, Arthur||Moore, William|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Bramsdon, T. A.||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Bright, J. A.||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Brooke, Stopford||Cooper, G. J.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Burke, E. Haviland-||Craik, Sir Henry|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Crean, Eugene|
|Barnes, G. N.||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Cullinan, J.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Dalziel, James Henry|
|Beale, W. P.||Byles, William Pollard||Delany, William|
|Beauchamp, E.||Cameron, Robert||Devlin, Joseph|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Dillon, John|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S.Geo.)||Cheetham, John Frederick||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Duckworth, James|
|Bithell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Clancy, John Joseph||Duffy, William J.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Cleland, J. W.||Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Boland, John||Clough, William||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Clynes, J. R.||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Brace, William||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Erskine, David C.|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Rees, J. D.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Lehmann, R. C.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Lundon, W.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)|
|Field, William||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Findlay, Alexander||Lyell, Charles Henry||Robinson, S.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Flynn, James Christopher,||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Gardner, Ernest||Maclean, Donald||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Gilhooly, James||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Gill, A. H.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)||Rowlands, J.|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Glendinning, R. G.||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||M'Killop, W.||Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Seddon, J.|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Gulland, John W.||Marnham, F. J.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Halpin, J.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Harcourt, Rt Hn. L. (Rossendale)||Meagher, Michael||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzi|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Middlebrook, William||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Snowden, P.|
|Harrington, Timothy||Mond, A.||Stanley, Albert(Staffs, N. W.)|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Mooney, J. J.||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Harwood, George||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morse, L. L.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Murnaghan, George||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Summerbell, T.|
|Hazleton, Richard||Myer, Horatio||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Nolan, Joseph||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Nuttall, Harry||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Hills, J. W.||O'Brien, William (Cork)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Toulmin, George|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Verney, F. W.|
|Hodge, John||O'Doherty, Philip||Waldron, Laurence Ambrose|
|Hogan, Michael||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Hooper, A. G.||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Wardle, George J.|
|Horniman, Emslie John||O'Dowd, John||Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Grady, J.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Hudson, Walter||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Malley, William||Watt, Henry A.|
|Jackson, R. S.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||O'Shee, James John||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Parker, James (Halifax)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Partington, Oswald||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)|
|Jowett, F. W.||Percy, Earl||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Joyce, Michael||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Kavanagh, Walter M.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Power, Patrick Joseph||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Kettle, Thomas Michael||Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford, E.)||Young, Samuel|
|Kilbride, Denis||Radford, G. H.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.|
|Lambert, George||Reddy, M.|
|Lamont, Norman||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
§ *MR. MASSIE
moved to omit from subsection (4) of the clause paragraph (b), which gave permission to the University 578 authorities to allow the erection of a chapel within the precincts of the University. This paragraph was not 579 originally in the Bill, and it owed its insertion to an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cambridge University and accepted by the Chief Secretary. He was sure that it was moved in all good nature; and with characteristic good nature it was accepted, but, he was inclined to think, with some inadvertence. He would not be surprised to know that the Chief Secretary was nodding with moat excusable fatigue. It was a well meaning insertion, but he feared that it was rather precipitate, that it was gratuitous, and that it was mistaken altogether. It had not been asked for either by ecclesiastics or by politicians, and he thought it was an unfortunate concession because it had created an artificial difficulty. At the time it was accepted it was a breach, an unconscious breach, of a pledge which had been given that no public money should be spent for any religious purpose. Of course the site on which the church or chapel would be built would be land purchased with public money. It had been suggested, and indeed practically offered, that the site should be repurchased with private money, and in that way of course the pecuniary objection would be overcome, and the original pledge of the Chief Secretary would remain inviolate. But while the price of the site, which was a minor difficulty, would be taken out of the way, a much greater difficulty would be left untouched. It was not so much the value of the site as the site itself that was the difficulty. The presence of a denominational chapel within the precincts of the University would be flatly opposed to the idea of the Bill. On paper at any rate the Bill was undenominational, but paragraph (b) for the erection of a chapel was on paper denominational, and would allow a foothold for denominationalism within the precincts of the University. It was more than merely on paper, because it was a solid and an ostentatious foothold. It gave room for the flag of a particular denomination to be planted proclaiming that the precincts of the University were the peculiar ground of one denomination. That at once affected the conception of the University and produced a conception contrary to the idea of the Bill. Many of them had already expressed the hope that Catholics 580 would come to the University of Belfast and Protestants to the University which was to have its seat in Dublin, without feeling that they were aliens in a strange land. But if a chapel met them in the precincts of the University they would instantly recognise the symbol of an opposing ascendancy just as they did in the presence of a chapel within the precincts of Trinity College, Dublin, and they would be jarred by a note of discord and inequality. It was quite irrelevant to plead that in Oxford and Cambridge each, college had its chapel within its precincts, or that in the precincts of Trinity College, Dublin, there was an Episcopalian Chapel. These were old institutions and the tokens of ancient exclusiveness could not easily be removed, and could only be slowly modified, and Trinity College, Dublin, should not be imitated on the side of its exclusiveness. No University recently founded within this kingdom had a church or chapel within its precincts. The idea was opposed to the idea of the Bill: it tended to thwart the hopes they entertained of a true catholicity in a free University: it was not asked for, and, as he thought, it was unfortunately given in inadvertence and in haste; and he pleaded that with consideration and at leisure the permission should now be withdrawn.
In page 6, line 1, to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of Clause 7."—(Mr. Massie.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said it was perfectly true that this particular subsection was not in the original Bill, and if it were the fact that, from the point of view of hon. Members behind him, the Bill had been made worse during its progress through Committee, the hon. Member for Cambridge University must be regarded as its evil genius. But, speaking quite frankly, he personally could see no reason why a University of this description should not have a church or chapel, particularly as the technical objection could be got over not only as regarded the site itself, but that the very bricks and mortar of the new chapel could be provided by private 581 benefaction. The pledge that no public money should be devoted to sectarian purposes could be strictly maintained. His hon. friend who now moved the omission of this subsection had said that no analogy could be drawn from Oxford and Cambridge, because they were old institutions. The Church of Rome was, after all, an old institution, too. He saw no particular reason why, in a college which he had hoped, and still hoped, would be a residential college, there should not be planted, even within the precincts of the University, a church or chapel dedicated to the worship of Almighty God. He drew no strong distinction between the worship of Almighty God on one side of a wall and the other. He agreed that the erection of a chapel was not contemplated by him when he drew the Bill, nor was any demand or request ever made for it except at the instance of the hon. Member for Cambridge University, but, having been inserted in the Bill, he could not disguise from himself the fact that its withdrawal would not unnaturally excite a certain amount of feeling. Some of his hon. friends had addressed him almost as men about to die at the hands of outraged constituents on account of the pressure the Bill was putting on the consciences of Nonconformists. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who anticipated disaster to the Liberal Party in consequence of this measure would find their cheerful hopes entirely dissipated. At the same time the provision was not in the Bill when he introduced it, or during the Second Reading stage, and as undoubtedly it did introduce a new principle in modern Universities—[An HON. MEMBER: Mansfield.] Mansfield College was not a University. It was a college, not a University, and was not, so far as he knew, built with public funds. He was, therefore, prepared, not without some personal regret that this should be forced on him, but fully recognising the great loyalty and generosity which his hon. friends behind him had exhibited throughout, to assent to the excision of the subsection, and he was sure he might rely on the warm support of hon. Gentlemen opposite whose souls, he knew, were very much disturbed by the idea of a chapel being built within the precincts of the University.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
said he had heard with great regret the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It was true that the subsection was not put into the Bill at the invitation of the Irish Party. They did not ask for it, but having been inserted he extremely regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to strike it out. On the merits of the question he could not, for the life of him, see what objection any hon. Member could have to the provision. There was, of course, the technical objection as to site; that the land would be purchased by public money under a scheme under which it had been said that no public money would be devoted to denominational purposes. That objection could be removed, however, by inserting the condition that the site would only be given if it were purchased from private sources under conditions imposed by the Senate. He saw no objection in principle to that. Every college in Oxford and Cambridge had its chapel, and there was also a chapel in Trinity College, Dublin. An hon. Gentleman for one of the constituencies in Yorkshire had said that a way to settle the matter from a Catholic point of view was for Catholics to go to Trinity College and that another denominational chapel should be provided for them in that college. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment had stated that in none of the new Universities recently created was there a chapel. That was not exactly the point. The point was, was there anything in the constitution of these Universities to prevent a chapel being built within the precincts? He did not think there was; and he did not think that they had any right to impose upon this new University whose seat was to be in Dublin a disability which was not to be found in the constitution of the other new Universities in England. Their hope was that this should be a residential college, and in a residential college they had a right to have a chapel for the denomination to which the students belonged. He wished to express his regret and the regret of his friends at the decision arrived at by the Chief Secretary, but he thought that under the circumstances the least they could do was to record their vote against the Amendment.
§ *MR. BUTCHER
said, that as the evil genius of this amended Bill he would like to say one word about this subsection, the omission of which had been moved. He must say he knew at the time he proposed its insertion that it was going a little bit on the border line to suggest that a site bought by public money should be given for the erection of a chapel to be paid for privately, but that seemed a very narrow and technical objection to take. Yet if there were, on the other side of the House, some disturbed consciences which would be relieved by the easy method of the excision of these few words, he did not wish to prevent the placating of their consciences. He would only say that his idea in making the proposal and certain other Amendments which he had suggested was really to allow the Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics to make provisions for the furnishing of their University with those varied elements which had been historically associated with the life of a University and with a residential college.
§ MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)
said he did not desire to prolong the discussion, as the Chief Secretary wished to bring the proceedings to a close in a reasonable time. He suggested, however, that if that was the right hon. Gentleman's wish he should not offer to the House such interesting subjects of debate as the probable effect of the passage of the Bill on the Liberal Party. If the Chief Secretary threw down challenges of that kind he must not assume that they on that side of the House were not prepared to take them up, or that they did not hold strong views upon them. Nor must he assume that they did not believe that when the proper time came to test those views it would be found that those of his friends were more correct than the right hon. Gentleman's. He merely said that byway of caveat. He was in this peculiar position—he spoke for himself alone—that he regretted the action taken by the Chief Secretary in omitting this section. He hoped that this University would be to a very large extent a denominational University, and if it had been started upon those lines its future prosperity would depend to a very large extent upon the enthusiasm which the Catholic Church 584 in Ireland brought to bear upon it. It seemed to him that if a University was to be established in Ireland which was to satisfy the Catholic population of that country, it must be an educational centre in an atmosphere distinct from that of Trinity College, and it was amazing that in the new University they were not to be allowed the privilege which was already enjoyed in other similar institutions of having a chapel of their own. He could not appreciate the sense of the view which led to the support of this particular Amendment, but the Chief Secretary had adopted it and he congratulated the House on the admirable way in which this part of the proceedings had been carried through. All he could say was that it showed that it was not argument but some totally different motive which prevailed in accepting or rejecting Amendments. The course taken by the Chief Secretary threw a flood of light upon the character of the proceedings. The acceptance of this Amendment was a sort of peace-offering to those of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters who had behaved well. It was not arguments which always carried Amendments; the time occasionally came when it was thought desirable "to give a little bit of sugar to the bird." The Amendment was not an improvement upon the Bill, it was not another step to meet the just requirements of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, but was simply in order that the proceedings on the Government side of the House might be harmonious and peaceful towards the close. He could say of his friends that they were not by any means duped or deceived by what was going on, but they felt at the same time that they were not likely to receive any of the sugar. He believed that they would be wisely guided if they abbreviated any recommendations they had to make, having regard to the fact that in all their Amendments they had striven to make the Bill undenominational in its character.
§ MR. C. J. O'DONNELL (Newington, Walworth)
said that he regretted he was obliged, to separate himself from his Nonconformist friends on this occasion. He was a Liberal and had no great affection for clerical interference, 585 but he had an affection for religion, and he regretted the excision of this subsection from the Bill, because he regarded it as the only undenominational part of the Bill. It was, he thought, monstrous, if they had Presbyterian students attending these Universities, that, they should
§ not have the fullest means of worshipping God according to their consciences.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 172. (Division List No. 221.)587
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Hay, Hon. Claude George||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Hazleton, Richard||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Healy, Timothy Michael||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Hills, J. W.||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Hogan, Michael||O'Dowd, John|
|Beale, W. P.||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||O'Grady, J.|
|Boland, John||Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Joyce, Michael||O'Malley, William|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Kavanagh, Walter M.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||O'Shee, James John|
|Byles, William Pollard||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kettle, Thomas Michael||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kilbride, Denis||Percy, Earl|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Lamont, Norman||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Clive, Percy Areher||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Clynes, J. R.||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Reddy, M.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Crean, Eugene||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Cullinan, J.||Lundon, W.||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Delany, William||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Devlin, Joseph||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Dillon, John||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||McHugh, Patrick A.||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Duffy, William J.||McKean, John||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||McKillop, W.||Talbot, Rt, Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Magnus, Sir Philip||Valentia, Viscount|
|Fell, Arthur||Meagher, Michael||Waldron, Laurence Ambrose|
|Ffrench, Peter||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Field, William||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Mooney, J. J.||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Murnaghan, George||Young, Samuel|
|Gardner, Ernest||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Gilhooly, James||Nannetti, Joseph P.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Captain Donelan.|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Nolan, Joseph|
|Halpin, J.||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Brien, William (Cork)|
|Harrington, Timothy||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurh)||Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire)||Duckworth, James|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Bryce, J. Annan||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Erskine, David C.|
|Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)||Cameron, Robert||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Cheetham, John Frederick||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Ferens, T. R.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Ferguson, R. C. Munro|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Clark, George Smith||Findlay, Alexander|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Cleland, J. W.||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Clough, William||Glendinning, R. G.|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Gordon, J.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Cooper, G. J.||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale)|
|Brace, William||Craig, Charles Cortis (Antrim, S.)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Harwood, George||Marnham, F. J.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Massie, J.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Micklem, Nathaniel||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Middlebrook, William||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aperdeen, W.)||Mond, A.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Henry, Charles S.||Moore, William||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Myer, Horatio||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Nuttall, Harry||Toulmin, George|
|Hodge, John||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Verney, F. W.|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Parker, James (Halifax)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Hooper, A. G.||Partington, Oswald||Walton, Joseph|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Wardle, George J.|
|Hudson, Walter||Pollard, Dr.||Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Price, C. E (Edinb'gh, Central)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Jackson, R. S.||Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford, E.)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Raphael, Herbert H.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Rees, J. D.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Robinson, S.||Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Roe, Sir Thomas||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Rowlands, J.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Samuel Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Schwann C. Duncan (Hyde)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Lynch, H. B.||Seaverns J.H.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Shaw, Rt, Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Maclean, Donald||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|McArthur, Charles||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
In page 6, line 25, to leave out the word 'senate,' and to insert the words 'governing body.'
In page 6, line 26, to leave out the word 'their,' and to insert the word 'the.'
In page 6, line 26, after the word 'colleges,' to insert the words 'of the new University having its seat at Dublin.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ MR. T.M. HEALY
moved the addition to the clause of a declaration that nothing in this section should preclude any money being provided by Parliament, in addition to the sums provided under the section, for the purposes of the Universities and colleges.
In page 6, at the end of the clause, to add the words 'Nothing in this section shall preclude any money being provided by Parliament in addition to the sums provided under this section, either in augmentation of any sums contributed for the purpose of the Universities or colleges from other sources, or otherwise.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ *MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)
moved to omit Clause 8 (Application of surplus of fee fund for the purposes of Universities and colleges). It was within the knowledge of all the friends of the technical instruction movement in Ireland that while the Treasury grant for that purpose was only £55,000, they had been getting a little help from this source also. It was with the utmost surprise and disappointment that they now found it was proposed, without explanation, to take away a sum, amounting roughly to about £7,000, which it had been hoped to utilise in aid of the work of technical education in Ireland. As one interested in that work, he protested strongly against the fund being diverted from the purpose for which it was earmarked to the new Universities. Such action was unfair and entirely without warrant, and should be reconsidered even at that late stage of the proceedings. In answer to a Question put down the other day the House was informed that almost 589 all the modern Universities in England had been started on their career with grants of only £2,000 per annum. They found the new University in Dublin starting out with an income of £42,000 per annum, supplemented by a very large building grant, and as if that were not sufficient they had this comparatively poor and struggling technical department robbed of some £7,000. Technical instruction urgently required the additional grant which had been earmarked for it. He begged to move.
§ *SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University)
seconded. He said that although he fully recognised that the Universities needed the money, he seconded the Amendment, not because he loved the Universities less, but because he loved technical instruction more.
In page 6, line 40, to leave out Clause 8."—(Mr. Barrie.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'for,' in page 7, line 2, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that this matter was fully explained in Committee. It was not quite accurate to say that this fund was earmarked for technical education. It was set apart in order to meet certain demands which had to be met year by year. The last person who had any claim on the fund died some time ago, and the
§ fund was entirely released. It then became a question as to what was to be done with it. On consideration of the question, and in view of the fact that these Universities wanted all the money they could possibly get, they thought this was the most admirable and proper use which could be made of the money.
§ MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)
said that technical instruction in Ireland would suffer by the withdrawal of this money, and he did not think anyone wanted to see technical instruction in Ireland in any way weakened or hampered by want of funds. It would not confer any benefit on Ireland to take away money devoted to a very useful form of education for the purpose of giving it to the new Universities. The right hon. Gentleman had said that money would be required for the Universities, but they should find it from some other source instead of robbing this fund.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 251; Noes, 33. (Division List No. 222.)591
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Butcher, Samuel Henry||Duckworth, James|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Duffy, William J.|
|Ambrose, Robert||Byles, William Pollard||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Cameron, Robert||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Erskine, David C.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cheetham, John Frederick||Esmonde, Sir Thomas|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Barnes, G. N.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Evans, Sir Samuel T.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Clancy, John Joseph||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Cleland, J. W.||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Beale, W. P.||Clough, William||Ferguson, R. C. Munro|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Clynes, J. R.||Ffrench, Peter|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Field, William|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Findlay, Alexander|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Cooper, G. J.||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Boland, John||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Gardner, Ernest|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Crean, Eugene||Gilhooly, James|
|Brace, William||Cullinan, J.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John|
|Brunner, Rt Hn Sir S. T. (Cheshire)||Delany, William||Glendinning, R. G.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Devlin, Joseph||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Dillon, John||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Halpin, J.||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale)||M'Kean, John||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)||M'Killop, W.||Rowlands, J.|
|Hardy, Goorge A. (Suffolk)||Mallet, Charles E.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Marnham, F. J.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Harrington, Timothy||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Harwood, George||Massie, J.||Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Scaverns, J. H.|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Meagher, Michael||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Meehan, Patrick A.(Queen's Co.)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Hazleton, Richard||Micklem, Nathaniel||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Mond, A.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Mooney, J. J.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Murnaghan, George||Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Snowden, P.|
|Hills, J. W.||Myer, Horatio||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast')||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Hodge, John||Nolan, Joseph||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Hogan, Michael||Nuttall, Harry||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Hooper, A. G.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||O'Brien, William (Cork)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Horniman, Emslie John||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Hudson, Walter||O'Doherty, Philip||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Toulmin, George|
|Jackson, R. S.||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Verney, F. W.|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Dowd, John||Waldron, Laurence Ambrose|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Grady, J.||Walters, John Tudor|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Walton, Joseph|
|Jowett, F. W.||O'Malley, William||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan)|
|Kavanagh, Walter M.||O'Shee, James John||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Parker, James (Halifax)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Partington, Oswald||Watt, Henry A.|
|Kettle, Thomas Michael||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Kilbride, Denis||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Pollard, Dr.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Lamont, Norman||Power, Patrick Joseph||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Raphael, Herbert H.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Reddy, M.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Lundon, W.||Redmond, William (Clare)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Rees, J. D.||Young, Samuel|
|Lynch, H. B.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Macdonald, S.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.|
|Mackarness, Frederic C.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Maclean, Donald||Robinson, S.|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. John H.||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Pease, Herbert Pike-Darlington|
|Bull, Sir William James||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter-Dublin, S)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Clark, George Smith||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Valentia, Viscount|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||MacCaw, William J. MacVeagh||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||M'Arthur, Charles||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Avers-||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Fell, Arthur||Moore, William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Hugh Barrie and Mr. Gordon.|
|Hamilton, Marquess of||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
Resolution agreed to.
§ MR. BIRRELL
moved to omit "Saint" before "Cecilia Street School." This was not a denominational point, but a merely topographical expression.
In page 9, line 1, to leave out the word 'Saint.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said the next Amendment which he desired to move was for the purpose of securing that persons who had succeeded in passing their degrees at the Royal University should obtain them even after the expiration of the five years on conditions not more onerous than those under which they could obtain corresponding degrees in the Royal University of Ireland.
In page 9, line 37, at end, to add the words and the governing body of each of the two new universities shall, so far as practicable, provide for any such students obtaining degrees on conditions not more onerous than those under which they could obtain corresponding degrees in the Royal University of Ireland.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
In page 11, line 24, to leave out the word 'six,' and to insert the word 'seven.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
In page 11, line 38, after the word 'provided,' to insert the words 'and in conditions specified.'"—(Mr. Kettle.)
In page 11, line 39, at end, to add the words 'and in the case of an existing officer who holds his office during the pleasure of His Majesty shall be so re-appointed if His Majesty directs, notwithstanding anything in the statutes of the University or college.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
In page 12, line 13, at end, to insert the words 'but no such provision need be made by the scheme for any existing officers who are appointed to offices in either of the two new universities, or of any of the constituent colleges of the new University having its seat at Dublin by virtue of the charter of the University or college.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
In page 13, line 4, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'or of any charter granted thereunder.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
In page 13, line 4, after the word 'accepts,' to insert the words 'or is appointed to.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
In page 14, line 22, at end, to insert the words 'The costs of all parties of and incident to an appeal shall be in the discretion of the committee by whom the appeal is heard.'
In page 14, line 26, at end, to insert the words 'and the mode in which any costs allowed may be recovered.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
In Schedule 1, page 16, line 19, at beginning, to insert the words 'Members of Convocation.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)
§ Amendments agreed to, without discussion.
§ MR. MOORE
moved an Amendment to provide that in the case of the Dublin University there should be one member representing the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. In the Belfast University there was to be a member of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce. He did not wish to alter the symmetry of the right hon. Gentleman's numbers, so he proposed to allow three co-opted members instead of four and to have the difference made up by one from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. He moved this at the special request of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University who was detained in Ireland. He should not have moved it had it not been on behalf of his hon. friend. They had made the best fight they could and had been outvoted on all occasions, irrespective of argument. At that time of day nothing was gained by doing more than allowing the Government to have their way, which they had insisted on having by the aid of the majority which was at their command.
In page 16, line 20, to leave out '4,' and insert '3.'"—(Mr. Moore.)
§ Question proposed, "That '4' stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he could not accept this proposal now. It was discussed very carefully upstairs, and he had already repeated the reasons he had given why it was found impossible to recognise all the various representative bodies, many of whom had as strong claims to be represented as the Chamber of Commerce. He would be very sorry to see the co-opted members reduced even by one.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ *SIR PHILIP MAGNUS
moved the Amendment in his name to give representation on the Senate of the Belfast University to the Technical Instruction 595 Committee, which was the governing body of the Belfast Technical Institute. He said very strong representations had been made by the Belfast Technical Institute that they should be represented on the new University. The Chief Secretary had said it was very difficult, if not impossible, to accede to all the claims for representation, but it was highly desirable that institutions like the Belfast Technical Institute, which was erected at a cost of over £100,000, and had excellent appliances for giving technical instruction, should be closely associated with the work that was now carried on in Queen's College, and would in future be carried on in the University at Belfast.
§ MR. J. DEVLIN
said he would like to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accede to the very legitimate request made in this Amendment. As one of the representatives of Belfast who was in favour of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, and who resented very strongly the statements which had been made that Belfast was opposed to the University proposals, he pressed upon him the importance of acceding to the large volume of public opinion in favour of the proposal.
In page 17, after line 5, to insert the words 'Elected by the Belfast Technical Instruction Committee.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)
as representing one of the constituencies of Belfast thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made. He thought all the Members for Belfast might agree that his readiness to meet their wishes was an evidence of the desire to meet fairness when fairness was put forward. In this case he had certainly met the wishes of Belfast as a whole, and he thanked him very much.
In page 17, line 13, to leave out '4,' and insert '3.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)
§ Question proposed, "That '4' stand part, of the Bill."596
§ Amendment negatived.
In page 18, line 2, to leave out the words 'a majority of the Commissioners,' and to insert the words 'at least five members of the joint committee.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.