HC Deb 31 July 1908 vol 193 cc2000-13

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendments— In Clause 3, after the word 'divinity,' to insert the words Provided that no test of religious belief shall be imposed by the governing body of either of the two new Universities or any constituent college on any such professor or lecturer as a condition of his appointment or recognition by the governing body as such professor or lecturer.' In page 3, after line 35, to insert the following new subsections '(3) The governing body of a University or constituent college to which the statute relates, or any other person, corporation, or body directly affected by the statute may, within three months from the notification thereof in the Dublin Gazette, petition the Lord-Lieutenant in Council to disallow the whole or any part thereof. (4) The Lord-Lieutenant in Council may refer any such petition to the Irish Universities Committee with a direction that the committee hear the petitioner personally or by counsel, and report specially to the Lord-Lieutenant 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, the Lord-Lieutenant 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.' In page 4, lines 1 to 3, to leave out Subsection (2) and to insert as a new subsection '(2) The Dublin Commissioners shall be the Right Hon. Christopher Palles, Alexander Anderson, John Pius Boland, Sir William Francis Butler, Denis Joseph Coffey, Stephen Gwynn, Henry Jackson, Sir John Rhys, The Most Rev. William Walsh, Bertram Coghill Alan Windle; and the Belfast Commissioners shall be His Honour James Johnston Shaw, Samuel Dill, the Rev. Thomas Hamilton, Donald Macalister, Robert T. Martin, Sir Arthur William Rücker, Johnson Symington.'

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment— In page 5, line 39, after the word 'funds,' to insert the words 'and the professor or lecturer is not eligible for membership of the General Board of Studies, or of any faculty other than the faculty of theology; or (b) the erection of any church, chapel, or place of religious worship or observance by means of private benefaction within or without the precincts of the University or college.'

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,) Bristol, N.

said that this Amendment of the Lords hid in one way and another got the Bill into rather a state of confusion, and he proposed to deal with the matter in another way. The Amendment divided itself into two parts, and with the first part down to the word "theology" he proposed to agree. But then the Amendment went on to reinsert certain words which were inserted for the first time in Committee upstairs, and when the Bill returned to the House on Report the words were excised. They were reinserted in another place by a majority of one. He believed that for a considerable time the Government had looked forward to the unique experience of having a majority of their own, but by the influence of the Episcopal bench the Amendment was carried by one, and the hopes of his noble friend were dashed to the ground. Owing to what had passed in the House on the Report stage it was not possible now to accept the Amendment in reference to the erection of chapels. To make good sense of the entire clause he proposed to disagree with the Amendment, and then at the end of line 41 to insert the words "and no professor of, or lecturer in, theology shall be eligible for membership of the General Board of Studies, or of any faculty other than the faculty of theology." He moved in the first instance to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment"—(Mr. Birrell.)

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said that as the Chief Secretary was aware, at an early stage of the proceedings he had disagreed with his action with regard to the chapel clause, and he had described it then, as he believed it now, as an attempt at the last moment to conciliate Nonconformist opinion on the other side of the House, which had been so remarkably quiescent in the earlier stages and was prepared to allow its own Government to do what it would have vigorously resented if it had come from a Conservative Government. This was an attempt to placate them, and to send them away for the holidays with a pleasanter taste in their mouths. Far be it from him to deprive them of that pleasant addition to their holidays. They would find a satisfaction he should not share. He would like to take that opportunity of saying that in the discussion of the Amendment he had apparently fallen into a strange error, because he was reported to have said that he "hoped" this would be a denominational University. What lie obviously meant to say, and bethought did say, was that he 'believed" it would be a denominational University; and holding that belief, he had said that not only must there be active participation in the work of the Roma Catholic hierachy if it was to be a success, but he had gone on to point out that, being a denominational University in his judgment it was not only a hardship but altogether illogical and unjust to draw these particular distinctions with regard to places of worship. He had thought it necessary to make that correction, because his remarks had been criticised in some portion of the Press, and had naturally led to some controversy amongst those who might happen to know that he held views of a different kind, although he did not know whether they attached any interest to what his views were on this subject. He did not propose to offer any opposition to the action of the Chief Secretary; so far as he was concerned, he accepted the decision arrived at on the Report stage as final, and he would not trouble to divide the House against a proposal which, although he did not like it, formed part of the Bill for which the Government was responsible. He had no doubt it might be advanced as an expression, in milk-and-water fashion, of those old principles of undenominationalism which at one time formed the staple argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but which, in these later days, they had not only abandoned, but in the abandonment took credit to themselves for the establishment of this University, which they would eventually find to be nothing but a denominational institution. That being so, he thought it would have been fairer if, instead of cutting off a small portion of it, they had given a denominational University right out, and allowed the chapels to be built.

MR. KETTLE (Tyrone, E.)

said the Chief Secretary would not be surprised at finding the Irish Members as a matter of principle going into the division lobby against him on this question. Personally, he did not much like agreeing with the Lords on anything, but he had no constitutional objection to them. This Amendment represented the views of Irish Members in Committee, which they afterwards supported on the Report stage. He did not propose to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin in attempting to make party capital at the expense of the Nonconformists on this matter. Of course the right hon. Gentleman would go away much happier on his holidays if he thought he had made a little party capital. The right hon. Gentleman's view was that the University was going to be an entirely denominational University. The view of the Nationalist Members from Ireland was that these Universities were going to be free Universities. Clause 3 thoroughly secured that. Hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House who were opposed to protective tariffs and to artificially keeping foreign goods out of the country, ought to join with the Irish Members in keeping in the Bill a clause that would have the effect of not artificially keeping religious teaching out of the University. The House ought clearly to understand the position. The effect of the Amendment inserted by the Lords would be this. There were to be no tests for teachers or students; no compulsion for students to attend religious instruction or religious worship; but it would be open to any denomination by private enterprise, and out of private funds, to erect a chapel for the purpose of religious worship, whether it was in Belfast or in Dublin. The question of the site, which in the first instance would be secured by public, money, was dealt with by his hon. friend the Member for Waterford on the Report stage of the Bill. The University was to be a free University; no one was excluded from it on the ground of any particular religion; but the Bill as it now came down from the Lords left it open to any denomination, by their enterprise and their enthusiasm for their religion, to erect a chapel at which the students of that particular denomination, under no compulsion except the compulsion of conscientious belief in their religion, might attend their religious worship. He thought that with regard to this Bill the Nonconformists had behaved admirably, and that, notwithstanding any taunt that might be levelled against them from the front Opposition bench, they might go to their constituencies with the consciousness and satisfaction of having done more in a few years of liberal administration to settle this great question, than the Unionist Party had been able to accomplish in twenty years. The opposition to this Amendment was some what narrow. The Amendment if allowed to stand would have the effect of conferring freedom upon the University. The Nationalist Members, in making this protest, were by no means indifferent to the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. On the contrary, they were extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to those hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House who had principles as logical and pressed them as logically to a conclusion as did they who sat on the Irish benches; but he simply wished to say that Nationalist Members would feel it their duty to vote in favour of the Lords Amendment and against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said the hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken in a very unjust manner towards what he was pleased to call the Tory Party. He presumed he meant the Unionist Party. If a Bill to endow a Roman Catholic University in Ireland out of public funds had been proposed from that side of the House every Member of the Nonconformist Party opposite would have raised such an agitation against it that no Unionist Party could have carried it.

MR. KETTLE

said he might not have conveyed his meaning precisely. He was perfectly willing to recognise the frank and generous way in which the Tory or Unionist Party had behaved, but it did not come very well from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin to make rather cheap party capital at the expense of the Nonconformists in view of the fact that his Party had been in office for nearly twenty years and did not face the problem which the Chief Secretary had solved.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

did not think it could be said that his right hon. friend had attempted to make, party capital. They had to congratulate the Chief Secretary on the successful way in which he had given this University, a denominational one—no other kind would have satisfied the people of Ireland—and it was more hypocrisy not to acknowledge and describe it as an endowed Roman Catholic University supported out of public money. The other question on which his right hon. friend had to be congratulated was the very cheap price at which he had secured Nonconformist support, viz., the refusal to allow any place of worship to be erected by private funds. They had swallowed the camel and strained at the little goat.

MR. BUTCHER

expressed deep regret that the Government had found it necessary to take up the position which they had adopted. The whole object of their labours for many weeks past had been to give the Roman Catholics the kind of University which they would like, and on this point, where the religious feelings of the nation were deeply touched, they proposed to refuse a little parcel of ground on which a chapel might be built by private benefaction. It seemed a most narrow, technical, and lamentable ground to take up. What to hon. Gentlemen opposite was a more matter of the maintenance of the undenominational formula was to those for whom the University was designed a matter which touched them in their daily life. At present there was no proposal, because there was no money, to build a residential college. But one of the very first objects of private benefaction, and he hoped also of some State help, would be the erection of a proper residential college within the grounds of the University, and when it came to a residential college it would be a matter of extreme pain to the members of the college that that which had been associated with college life from time immemorial in all the great Universities, should by the fiat of that House be denied to them in Ireland. Even though they insisted, probably rightly, on having a technically undenominational University, was it necessary that they also should have an irreligious University? That was the light in which it would present itself to the people of Ireland, and he deeply regretted that that great gift, long delayed, but at last conferred upon the Irish people, should be marred by this graceless act.

LORD EDMUND TALBOT (Sussex, Chiehester)

said the Government could hardly be congratulated on their consistency in regard to this particular Amendment. The Chief Secretary accepted it in Committee, but gave way in the House, and if he was to be consistent in his inconsistency he might have accepted the decision come to by the other House. He found it difficult to use harsh words against the Chief Secretary because he felt indebted to him for the measure as a whole, but he felt that the action the Government were now taking was a sign of great weakness. It was simply giving way to the most extraordinary exhibition of narrow-minded bigotry. He should certainly give a hearty vote for the Amendment.

MR. HAY MORGAN (Cornwall, Truro)

said there had been a considerable amount of cheap and vulgar sneering at the position taken up by the Nonconformists, and remarks of a similar nature to those of the noble Lord had been made in another place. The position taken up by the Nonconformists was represented as very narrow and bigoted, and when it was proposed to leave out this Amendment from the Lords there was at once an insistance that it was of the greatest importance. He respected the good feeling of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to it, but, at the same time, Nonconformists had their feelings too, and their position was this: they had recognised from the start that the University in the South of Ireland and the University in the North of Ireland would become denominational Universities, from the very fact that in the South there was a large preponderance of Catholics and in the North a large preponderance of Protestants. They as Nonconformists and Liberals could no more object to that than they could object to a county council, or a local authority, in Wales being Nonconformist from the simple fact that most of the electors were Nonconformist. Their position had been quite consistent. They had endeavoured to say that when they were passing a Bill, although it created two Universities which would inevitably become denominational, the Bill itself should not be a denominational Bill. If the Amendment were permitted to go into the Bill, and they allowed a chapel to be built either in the North or in the South, from the very nature of the case that chapel would be a sectarian one. It must belong to some particular denomination, and whatever the denomination was the University would be stamped with that denominational mark. They thought it far better that the private benefactors who were ready to erect a chapel should erect it outside the precincts of the University, and by so doing their religious faith and aspirations would be completely satisfied.

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

expressed the deepest regret that the Government had not seen their way to concede this point. In Trinity College there was an ancient chapel, the symbol of the Protestant religion, and services were held there. It was, after all, a poor thing to provide a University presumably for Irish Catholics with a proviso that there should be no chapel within its precincts for the celebration of divine worship according to the Catholic religion. They were committing a great mistake. While respecting the Government for the way in which they had dealt with a very thorny question, he should be compelled to go into the division lobby against them.

SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University)

also desired to express his regret that the Chief Secretary had been unable to accept the Amendment. All the circumstances connected with the establishment of the University must be regarded as exceptional. They were called for by the fact that the Roman Catholics in Ireland were unable to accept the facilities for higher education which were provided in the present University of Dublin. When this Bill became an Act, Dublin would enjoy the exceptional privilege of being, he believed, the only city in Europe except one in which there were two Universities. In making this gift to the Irish Roman Catholics, he very much regretted that Parliament, by refusing to accept this Amendment, should accompany the gift by what would always be regarded as a grievance by the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He could not conceive any reason why the University, which would be governed almost, if not quite, exclusively by Roman Catholics, the professors of which would be mainly Roman Catholics, and in which the students themselves would be of one religion, should be refused the privilege of possessing a chapel in which the students might worship according to their religion. It was to him of the essence of the gift that it should be acceptable to the recipients and be welcomed by them. It was such gifts that equally blessed givers and receivers. He had felt considerable interest in the Bill, and he appealed to hon. Members opposite to show a generous spirit in dealing with the matter.

MR. MASSIE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)

said the hon. Member for Cambridge University had spoken of the graceless refusal of the demand. This chapel was never demanded at all either by politicians or bishops. The hon. Member himself in his good nature gratuitously proposed the chapel and so started the whole difficulty. It was precisely because they regarded them as free Universities that they desired that they should not be handicapped by a very prominent sign of exclusiveness. It was precisely because they regarded them as in theory undenominational that they desired to preclude as much denominationalism as possible, and especially that which would peculiarly stamp the University as denominational. But it was not at all surprising that those who desired to make out that these Universities were entirely denominational should seek to add a chapel in order that they might be as denominational as possible.

MR. WALSH (Lancashire, Ince)

said he was very much surprised at the changed attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He remembered, when they were debating the point in Committee as to whether there should be power given whereby a site for the erection of a chapel might be provided even out of the funds of the University, the right hon. Gentleman himself protested at what he described as the rather narrow spirit that some Members were manifesting. The right hon. Gentleman thought then that inasmuch as no chapel was to be paid for out of the funds of the University, and no Chair of theology and no professor of theology would receive a penny of public money, it was only proper that at least a site within the grounds of the University might be provided. At a later stage that power of providing a site was taken away, and now they found the right hon. Gentleman had completely veered round. He certainly thought hon. Members were taking a rather ungenerous and narrow view of the matter. It was admitted by hon. Members below the gangway that the Universities would be denominational from the very fact that a large preponderance of Roman Catholics resided in one portion of the country, and a great preponderance of Protestants in the other. The fact was incapable of contradiction. Why not meet it in as fair and generous a manner as possible?

AN HON. MEMBER

What about minorities?

MR. WALSH

said there would be two minorities. Minorities were always right it was said, and he remembered the right hon. Gentleman saying that suffering was the badge of all their tribe. He would not like to retort that the minority would have to suffer, but he could not conceive any minority actuated by such a spirit that they thought themselves compelled to suffer if some other people were given an opportunity of following their worship in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as to certain old and famous Universities having chapels within their precincts. It seemed to him a very narrow view they were taking in not allowing a pious donor to hand over a few thousand pounds wherewith to erect a chapel. After all, the Bill made it impossible that a penny of public funds should go to any faculty of theology. There was no theologian to be endowed out of the funds of the University and there was to be no religious or denominational test. There was no compulsory attendance at Divine worship. The Bill was a splendid Bill framed on most generous and democratic lines, and he certainly thought it was rather an unhappy ending that this tinge of narrowness and exclusion should come into what was otherwise a very desirable measure.

MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)

said that he had voted for the chapel at an earlier stage and he would support it again. It would be ungracious to spoil the Bill by refusing the power to erect a chapel; it was straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel.

*MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)

said that everybody understood what a chapel meant. Every other part of this University was liable to change according to the requirements that arose in the course of time, but he understood a Roman Catholic chapel was a consecrated building whose purpose could not be changed. That made the whole difference, and he thought that that consideration might have made some difference in the minds of Roman Catholics. That was an argument which cut two ways. In the case of an ardent Roman Catholic he could quite understand the desire that the building consecrated to that use should never by any possibility be devoted to any other use. On what terms was this University going to be made denominational?

Surely on the terms that it was to be democratic. It was intended to serve the uses of the people, and those who used it in one place might be Roman Catholics and in the other Protestants. In dealing with a University as a place of education to last for centuries subject to the necessary changes of times and circumstances it was better to set apart a separate site and a building to be devoted to religious uses, consecrated to that purpose only. In this way those who belonged to one particular religion would have all the advantages they desired, and all the opportunities of attending religious services in a place devoted to that one purpose. In this respect he agreed with the latest form in which the Bill appeared.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 142; Noes, 40. (Division List No. 240.)

AYES
Acland, Francis Dyke Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Fuller, John Michael F. Maddison, Frederick
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Mallet, Charles E.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Glendinning, R. G. Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Barnes, G. N. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Beck, A. Cecil Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Marnham, F. J.
Bell, Richard Greenwood, Hamar (York) Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.) Griffith, Ellis J. Massie, J.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Hall, Frederick Masterman, C. F. G.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale) Micklem, Nathaniel
Bowerman, C. W. Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose) Middlebrook, William
Bright, J. A. Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Mond, A.
Brooke, Stopford Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Bryce, J. Annan Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Morrell, Philip
Buxton, Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles Haworth, Arthur A. Norman, Sir Henry
Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight Henry, Charles S. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Parker, James (Halifax)
Cheetham, John Frederick Houston, Robert Paterson Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Cherry, Rt. Hon, R. R. Howard, Hon Geoffrey Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Cleland, J. W. Hudson, Walter Radford, G. H.
Clough, William Idris, T. H. W. Rainy, A. Rolland
Clynes, J. R. Illingworth, Percy H. Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jones, William(Carnarvonshire) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Jowett, F. W. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cooper, G. J. Kekewich, Sir George Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Laidlaw, Robert Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Lambert, George Roe, Sir Thomas
Crooks, William Lewis, John Herbert Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Dalziel, James Henry Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) Lupton, Arnold Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Lyell, Charles Henry Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Seely, Colonel
Duckworth, James Mackarness, Frederic C. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Maclean, Donald Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Essex, R. W. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Snowden, P.
Everett, R. Lacey, M'Callum, John M. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Ferens, T. R. M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Stanger, H. Y.
Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) Wadsworth, J. Williams, Llewelyn (Garm'rth'n)
Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Wardle, George J. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Strachey, Sir Edward Waring, Walter Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Straus, E. A. (Abingdon) Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan) Winfrey, R.
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Watt, Henry A. Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Thorne, William (West Ham) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Tomkinson, James Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Verney, F. W. Wilkie, Alexander
Vivian, Henry Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
NOES
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Heaton, John Henniker O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Balcarres, Lord Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Kettle, Thomas Michael Seddon, J.
Bowles, G. Stewart Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Dublin, S) Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Byles, William Pollard MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Carlile, E. Hildred Macpherson, J. T. Thornton, Percy M.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Valentia, Viscount
Collings, Rt. Hn J.(Birmingh'm) M'Hugh, Patrick A. Walsh, Stephen
Cowan, W. H. Magnus, Sir Philip
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Mooney, J. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Haviland-Burke.
Forster, Henry William Nolan, Joseph
Goulding, Edward Alfred O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment— In page 5, line 41, after the word 'teaching' to insert the word 'or' and leave out the words 'or religious worship.'

Agreed to.

An Amendment made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment— In page 5, line 39, which was disagreed to, by inserting in page 5, line 41, at the end thereof, the words 'and no professor of or lecturer in theology or divinity shall be eligible for membership of the General Board of Studies or of any faculty other than the faculty of theology.' "—(Mr. Birrell).

Remaining Lords' Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.

Committee nominated of, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Birrell, Mr. Bright, Mr. Walter Long, and Mr. Herbert Samuel.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Birrell.)