SECOND READING.

HL Deb 08 July 1879 vol 247 cc1823-62

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2^a. — (The Lord Chancellor. )

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

My Lords, the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack in introducing this Bill said that Her Majesty's Government had felt it their duty to make those proposals to Parliament in order to solve the difficulties which surrounded the question of University Education in Ireland. The noble and learned Earl also — and very justly—said that the provisions of the Bill—the proposals, I think, he called them—were extremely simple. Were I not well aware, in common with all your Lordships, of the sagacity of the noble and learned Earl, and of his general knowledge, I should have felt inclined to have interpreted the word "simple" in any but a complimentary sense; because I think anyone who has read the Bill will come to the conclusion that his simple solution is not a solution at all of the difficulties which surround the question in Ireland. Nay more, the noble and learned Earl seemed to think by professing himself unconscious of the existence of any grievance he had disposed of the grievance itself; for he observed that you could not call this matter a grievance, but rather a deficiency or an inconvenience affecting the arrangements as to the University Education of Ireland. My Lords, this deficiency or inconvenience has been an inconvenience to successive Parliaments and Governments for very many years. I hope that I shall be able to show your Lordships that it is not only a deficiency and an inconvenience with which we have to deal, but a very substantial and important grievance. My Lords, in order to do this, I must trouble your Lordships with a brief history of this University question. It may be said to have commenced in 1845 with the establishment of the Queen's Colleges. Now, as to the Queen's Colleges I wish to say not one word in their disparagement. The Queen's Colleges, though they have not been altogether attended with the success which their authors wished, and which, I think, they deserve, have nevertheless been a considerable success. Not only have they supplied the means of University training to the North of Ireland, but it is a fact—I need not trouble your Lordships with the figures, as they are familiar to all those who have taken an interest in the discussions—it is also a fact that a considerable number of Roman Catholics, disregarding the denunciations of the Colleges by the Catholic Bishops, have participated in. the advantages in education which are there to be obtained. It would, therefore, not be correct to say that the Queen's Colleges have been altogether a failure. They have failed in doing all that was necessary; but to say that the Queen's Colleges are a failure would be to say that which is unwarrantable. My Lords, as I have said, owing to the objection of a considerable portion of the Roman Catholics in Ireland, the success of the Queen's Colleges is by no means so considerable as could have been wished; and those who were not satisfied with the system of education pursued in the Queen's Colleges founded for themselves a College which they called a Catholic University. That College was founded by private subscriptions of a very considerable amount—which showed that the feeling which bad prompted the objection to the Queen's Colleges was really shared by a very large number of persons in Ireland. My Lords, in consequence of the foundation of this so-called University, or rather College, Motions were made in Parliament to obtain a Charter for the College as a University; and, as a consequence of these Motions, in 1866 the Government, which was then presided over by Lord Russell, and under which I had the honour to serve as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—the Government thought it their duty to consider in what way those demands could best be met. I was, as I have said, at that time holding the Office of Lord Lieutenant, and my noble Friend Lord Carlingford—with whose enforced absence to-night, and the cause of it, I am sure all your Lordships will sympathize—my noble Friend was then Chief Secretary for Ireland-and it fell, therefore, to our lot to prepare a scheme which should be submitted. to Parliament. Our proposals ultimately took the form of what was known as a "Supplemental Charter," the object of which was not altogether dissimilar to that of the measure now before the House, although it proposed considerably more. The scheme then proposed was to extend the powers of the Queen's University, so as to enable it to grant degrees to persons who had received their education at any College, or, indeed, at no College at all. In addition to those proposals—which, as I have said, resembled those now before the House—the Government of the day proposed that there should be certain scholarships or bursaries which should be open to all the students of the Colleges which might be included in the scheme, or to any who might present themselves for a degree to the Queen's University. Furthermore, in order to give it a substantial position in relation to the other Colleges, it was proposed to give the Roman Catholic College a Charter of incorporation. That was the scheme as it then stood. The Papers explaining it were laid before Parliament many years ago; but the ultimate result of it was this — it was endeavoured to carry the scheme into effect by a Supplemental Charter to the Queen's University. That Charter was objected to by a considerable number of those connected with the Queen's University. They brought the matter before the Courts of Law, and it was decided by the then Master of the Rolls that the grant of this Charter was beyond the power of the Crown. The Government was soon afterwards turned out on the question of Parliamentary Reform, and the whole scheme, in consequence, fell to the ground and was never tried. The next step was one with which the late Lord Mayo was connected. The Government of the day entered into negotiations to see whether they could agree upon terms by which a Charter could be given to the so-called Roman Catholic University to grant degrees. But I need not allude to this attempt further than to say that it was entirely abortive, except in so far as it showed that, in the opinion of Lord Mayo, this was a question which urgently required attention. Thereafter the question became one of great importance in the general politics of the country—so much so, that Mr. Gladstone made it one of the chief points of the programme he announced to the country before the change of Government took place in 1868. He pledged himself not only to disestablish the Irish Church and to deal with the tenure of Land, but also to deal with the question of University Education in Ireland. That pledge the late Government endeavoured to redeem in the year 1873. I will not allude to the particulars of the scheme and to the discussions which took place, for they are all, no doubt, sufficiently familiar to the House. It had the merit, at all events, of being a full and comprehensive scheme—it was a bold attempt to deal with the whole question. At first it met with a very considerable amount of support; but, subsequently it met with determined opposition at the hands, if I remember rightly, of a combination of extreme Liberals, who advocated secular education, with a certain number of Roman Catholic Members. The Bill was defeated, and with it the Government of the day. My Lords, the next step that was taken was to remove the tests which prevented those who were not of the Church of Ireland from sharing in the benefits of the endowments of the University of Dublin. It was supposed by those who had opposed Mr. Gladstone that by opening those endowments to all they might settle the University question. It was an excellent measure; but it was not a solution of the difficulty. So the question has remained till the present year, when, unless I have been misinformed, the present Government have thought the matter of so much importance that they have entered into negotiations with the Roman Catholic Bishops with a view to the formation of a scheme which might be laid before the House. It has been whispered that the nature of the new scheme was similar to that of the measure that has been brought forward in the other House. But, though the Government had come to the conclusion that the measure was not one that could command their approbation, so urgent did the matter appear to them that, at very short notice and at this very late period of the Session, they produced their own Bill on the subject. I hope that noble Lords will east their eyes back on this brief history and consider whether they can believe that this grievance can rightly be characterized as an inconvenience or a deficiency. Such words are wholly inapplicable to a problem that has perplexed Government after Government, and has caused more divisions among Parties than any other question of our time. In using such words, the noble and learned Earl apparently thought that if his Bill was simple some of his hearers were still more simple. My Lords, I think it is easy to show that it is not only an inconvenience and a deficiency, but a grievance, genuine and substantial. Now, what is the complaint of the Irish Roman Catholics? I understand it is this. They point to Trinity College, Dublin, and allege that though Trinity College has recently been opened to all, yet such is the history of the College—and a noble history it is, in my opinion—that it will necessarily be a long time before it becomes a place of education to which they can send their sons without injury to their faith. That is the view taken by a very large number of Roman Catholics; and the same thing is said by them of the Queen's Colleges, which, being places of secular education, do not meet with the approval of the clergy of their Church. I regret as much as anyone that our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects should think themselves bound to obey the behests of their ecclesiastical leaders. I have no sympathy with such feelings; but such is the fact, and we should not be justified in disregarding it. They can point, moreover, to this fact—that in primary education, though it is nominally mixed education, yet, owing to the numerical preponderance of Roman Catholics, the schools are, to all intents and purposes, denominational, and very different in character from the Queen's Colleges. They point naturally to the policy of the Government in the last Session of Parliament, and argue that, as the grievance was acknowledged and remedied in the case of intermediate education, so, in the present case, the boon should be granted, not only of an Examining Board, but of substantial endowment. They point, lastly, to the fact that the large majority of the Irish population are Roman Catholics; and that, though they are the poorest part of the nation, they have to provide their own higher education at their own expense. Secular education, and education in conformity with the Church of Ireland, are both aided by Parliament; but the majority are without any assistance in the matter of University Education. That is the grievance. Is it altogether unreasonable? My own sympathies, personally, are not with the Roman Catholics, but in favour of an education of a very different kind; but, while I dislike an education that is controlled by ecclesiastics, I have a still stronger dislike to no education at all. I think by education that principles of a more liberal kind may be instilled into the minds of the population, and that if one is more likely to be led by ecclesiastical authority than another it is the ignorant and ill-used man. But I ask your Lordships whe- ther the Bill before it can be regarded as a remedy. Its provisions are extremely simple—it differs from the Bill of 1866 only in the fact that it treats the Queen's Colleges and the University, if not with scant justice, at any rate, very cavalierly. It deprives the Colleges of their independent existence, and merges them in the new University. Now, what is the urgent necessity for this measure? If an Examining Board is wanted, there is the University of London, and also that of Dublin, at either of which it is, I believe, possible to obtain degrees without actual residence. That, of course, is the case with the University of London, and, I understand, at Dublin also, on payment of the necessary fees. There is, therefore, no very urgent necessity for the Bill. I do not say that there is anything very harmful in it; I am the last person to say so, because I remember that my Colleagues in the late Government of 1866 proposed an extension of the powers of the Queen's University; but I do venture to assert that, as a remedy for a grievance, this scheme is wholly inadequate. Is it impossible that this grievance should be remedied? We have last year seen the Government deal in a very liberal and wise way with the question of intermediate education—and we may ask what can be the reason why University Education should be treated in an entirely different manner? The noble and learned Earl has said that the Government disapprove the Bill in the other House because it proposes to endow a particular College; and to endow a particular College was inconsistent with the compact made with respect to the Surplus Fund of the Irish Church. But is it impossible to find a way of disposing of part of that surplus in some manner congenial to the measure of last year? No one imagines that the direct endowment of a Roman Catholic College could be proposed or carried, either by the present, or by any Government; but the Bill of last year has not endowed intermediate schools, and I cannot see why it is consistent with the compact made that the surplus should be employed for one educational purpose and not for the other. It may, perhaps, be argued that it was the intention of the Parliament that passed the Bill for the disendowment of the Irish Church that the surplus should not be used for any such object; but that contention has been disposed of by the unanswerable argument that one Parliament cannot bind another. I go, however, on the principle that this Parliament has already decided the question by determining that the surplus may be applied to Irish education; and, that being so, I cannot imagine why it cannot be used as well for higher as for lower education. The word " endowment" has been much insisted on, and the noble Earl at the head of the Government has said that, though he could not sanction an endowment, he could say nothing with respect to grants. Can it be the intention of the Government to propose a grant? Nothing, I think, could be more undesirable than to make it necessary to vote year after year fresh educational grants — I feel that those for the Queen's Colleges have already caused more than enough trouble. Now, would it not be possible, I will ask, to put an end to the whole of those grants, and to provide that a portion of the Church revenues should be applied in such a manner as to be available for the promotion of learning for all students connected with the proposed University? Suppose that a permanent sum out of the Church Surplus were allocated to the students of all the Colleges, so as to secure that the Colleges should have their fair share of the advantages thus conferred, and that the Parliamentary grant were at the same time withdrawn. A statesman-like scheme might thus be produced which would place education in Ireland on a permanently satisfactory footing. The question once thus settled, there would be no necessity for its coming year by year before Parliament, and very little more might possibly be heard of the subject for years to come. But, be that as it may, the present Bill furnishes no solution of the difficulty. Its may be thought that I, and those with whom I generally act, have a certain sense of satisfaction in casting doubt on the utility of the measure, and that—to use a common expression — our cue is to throw dirt on the proposals of the Government. So far from that, however, being the case, although I regard the Bill as a mere shadow, I do not wish to throw any obstacles in the way of the settlement of the question of University Education in Ireland. It may be a very pleasant feeling to look on at the difficulties of others. The poet said— Suave, marl magno, turbantibus æmquora ventis, E terrâ alterius magnum spectare laborem; but it was so— Non quia vexari quemquam est jucunda voluptas, Sed quibus ipse malis careas quia cernere suave est. And the condition is wanting in the present instance, for the question is one which has perplexed all Governments in past years, and it is the interest of all parties, as well as of the nation at large, that it should be settled. It is because I cannot see that the measure before the House affords any prospect whatever of solving the difficulty that I cannot help feeling that it is not worthy of the serious attention of your Lordships.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down appears to me somewhat inconsistent with the conclusion at which he has arrived. If the measure be of the worthless character the noble Earl has described, and if it affords no solution of the question with which it professes to deal, then it is only natural to suppose that he would have concluded his remarks by moving that it should be put aside, and that the time of the House should be no further wasted upon it. But the Bill, at all events, has this merit—that, so far as it goes, the noble Earl had not a word to say against its provisions. He has admitted that so far as it goes it is not objectionable. It is, at all events, a matter of some importance that there is a measure before the House, with regard to which noble Lords on both sides of the House can thus far agree. For my own part, I will say, as I said when the Bill of Mr. Gladstone was before the other House of Parliament, that, personally, my predilections are strongly in favour of denominational education. Upon that point I have never concealed my opinion. I believe it is the system which is best, and the most conducive to the interests of all concerned. But your Lordships have to consider what occurred when the Irish Church was disestablished. The principle was then laid down that for the future in Ireland religion was not to be patronized; that no distinction was to be made between one religion and another; and that no one religion was to have any endowment over the other. That was the principle laid down emphatically — that is the condition of things as they now exist in Ireland—and you must look at the question in that light. In England, as well as in Ireland, the Universities have been placed on a similar footing; and it is just as hard, I may be permitted to remark, that in Ireland Churchmen should be deprived of their right to denominational education as that Roman Catholics should be. In England, too, the members of the Established Church have been deprived of rights which they did not so much value as exclusive rights, as a privilege which enabled them to obtain education for their children in the form most consonant to their feelings. A different principle has, however, been laid down, and it is upon that principle that the present Bill is based. The noble Earl has spoken of the simplicity of the measure. No doubt, it is of a simple character; but it is so, because the subject with which it deals is one which admits of only a simple form of solution. The moment a certain point is passed passions and controversies are likely to be aroused, which will prevent you from dealing satisfactorily with the subject; and, for that reason, it is necessary that the proposal of the Government shall be simple. The noble Earl himself said that when he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a solution of the question had suggested itself to him, which was not altogether dissimilar to the plan now before the House. The Government acknowledge that there exists—I do not care whether it be called a grievance or a deficiency—in connection with the subject, and they believe that the plan which they have submitted for the approval of Parliament is the most equitable way of dealing with it. The noble Earl referred to the proposals made by Lord Mayo with the view to providing a remedy for that deficiency, and said that if they had been accepted the Roman Catholics would have had the advantage of an endowment; but, instead, the endowments of the Irish Church were overthrown. But your Lordships must bear in mind that the circumstances at that time were very different from what they are now. At that time denominational education was recognized; and if that Bill had been accepted, the Roman Catholics would have had the advantage of concurrent endowment, of which, by their refusal, they deprived themselves. But when the Irish Church was disestablished, it was settled that the ground on which peace should be made was that Ireland should be secularized; that no religious denomination there should be placed in a position of inequality with any other; but that all should be placed on the same level. So far as the Roman Catholics were concerned, they, to a certain extent, received a permanent endowment for the education of their priesthood; the Presbyterians got the Regime Donum; and a certain sum was given to the Disestablished Church in order to compensate for what was called the recent endowments; but that was really a question of compensation only, and not a question of the principle of religious endowment. As to what has been done in reference to the subject this year, I will observe that the Government saw the difficulty of passing any measure dealing with the question of Irish University Education at the commencement of the present Session; but when the circumstances of the case had entirely changed, and a measure was introduced into the other House which — not directly, but indirectly —proposed endowment, the Government thought it was better to state what they really meant to do in the matter, and, therefore, the Bill under discussion has been laid on the Table. The Bill proposes a University in Ireland absorbing the Queen's University, but not interfering with the Queen's Colleges. The Queen's University of Ireland is not a teaching, but an examining University. With respect to this University, the Government propose to constitute the enlarged University on the same footing, very much, as the Queen's University is at present. I do not know what may be done in the future; but, as the noble Earl has said, nobody at the present day would attempt to endow directly a Roman Catholic institution. The noble Earl spoke of the poor population of Ireland, as if they were the persons to be admitted to University Education; and he spoke of the great majority of the Irish as being that poor population. Now, my Lords, do not deceive yourselves with the idea that it is probable or possible that any Government will bestow money with so lavish a hand as to meet the requirements of a poor population, and give them an education which they could not otherwise get. The outside you can ever do is to give special prizes to successful students. The question of a grant is one for the House of Commons; but with respect to the Queen's University, it is in a totally different position from that of the Queen's Colleges; and as to the University about to be constituted, it will not at all raise those controversies which the Queen's Colleges might raise. Now, my Lords, what is the present condition of affairs? The Roman Catholics complain that they have a grievance in not being able to obtain a degree in any University in Ireland. They complain, beyond that, that they are shut out of a University Education—that they have none of the Educational advantages which are given to other denominations in Ireland. That state of things was remedied to a great extent by the Intermediate Education Act, the effect of which is to prepare youths for a University Education. A great deal has been done by the Roman Catholics, as the noble Earl has said. They have founded that College which has been distinguished by some very remarkable men who have been connected with it, and who have done much for the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. I have no doubt they will do much more; and I have no doubt that when there is a University in Ireland at their disposal the Roman Catholics, by their own exertions, will reap the full benefit of the University which we propose. If we were to take the step recommended by the noble Earl, we should at once raise controversies which by this Bill we are enabled to avoid. By this Bill we are enabled, in the matter of University Education, to do justice to every sect and creed in Ireland. When the University which we propose is in full operation it will confer the greatest possible benefits, and will meet the requirements of the Roman Catholic population.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, last year, when the Intermediate Education Bill for Ireland was introduced by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, I had real pleasure in giving it my humble but earnest support. It was the measure of a Government to which I am in opposition, and it was calculated to secure for them much acceptance and approval. But it was just in its principle, impartial in its action, comprehensive and efficient in its machinery, and designed to promote the sound instruction of all the people, without annoyance to the religious susceptibilities of any section of them; and I was prompt to express my appreciation of its merits and my gratitude for the great boon which it bestowed. I hoped that I might to-day have welcomed a similar act of wise and benevolent statesmanship, and seen a measure drawn on the same lines and aimed at the same results, mutates mutandis, to which I might have given warm adhesion. It seemed to me that such a measure would have been satisfactory to all reasonable men, and would have largely tended to secure the equality and justice for which the Catholics of Ireland have for many years contended. The precedent was complete—in establishing identical rights amongst the various religious denominations, and giving, for the purposes of intermediate education, the same aid which would have been effective, with proper modification, for the maintenance of a University available for the benefit of all. And as the precedent was complete, the time for applying it was auspicious. The Bill introduced into the Commons, with the full approval of Catholic Ireland, was moderate in its provisions, and presented in the spirit of conciliation, and with a real wish to effect an honourable compromise. I shall, of course, like the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, avoid any discussion of the details of a measure which is not before this House; but I may be forgiven for repeating the protest uttered by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Earl Grey) against the doctrine which would preclude Parliament from freely applying the surplus of the Irish Church Fund, as it may deem best for the public benefit. In my mind, it is impossible to imagine an application of Irish money, for Irish purposes, more legitimate than that which would be made in improving the education of Ireland, and so promoting her very highest interests. But, surely, the action of the last Session should make controversy on this point impossible. If it was allowable to give £1,000,000 of the fund to be spent, inter alia, on result fees confessedly for the assistance of intermediate schools of all denominations, with what sort of consistency can it be said that there would be breach of faith, or violation of principle, in bestowing as much, to be disposed of in the same way, for schools supplying a higher culture? There was nothing of sectarian endowment in the first allocation of the money, although Roman Catholics had the benefit of it, like other people; and there would be as little in the second. The result fees are received by sectarian institutions; but not because they are sectarian or for sectarian purposes. The State demands only good secular instruction, and pays for nothing else. It concerns itself, to use a phrase of my noble and learned Friend, only with the manufactured article; and if that be supplied in good condition, the manufacturer has his reward, whether he be Catholic, Presbyterian, or Episcopalian. The cases seem to me undistinguishable, and Parliament would be perfectly within its right, if it dealt with the second as it wisely and generously dealt with the first. lint we have the highest authority for denying any distinction between them, and asserting the Constitutional power of the Legislature so to dispose of the surplus, whatever may have been the views originally entertained about it. In the debate on the second reading of the O'Conor Don's Bill in the House of Commons, the Leader of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, used these words— In the debate of to-day, as to whether it is or is not in the power of Parliament to alter the disposition of the funds, which was contemplated by Parliament at the time the Church was disestablished, everybody, of course, must admit that, at all events, technically speaking, it is free to Parliament to alter the work which has been done by a preceding Parliament, and to vary the disposition of the funds which were formerly intended to be appropriated in a certain way."—[3 Hansard, ccxlvi. 990.] The difficulties in the application of the doctrine to which he adverted as to a Conscience Clause and other things have no real exisience. So that principle, precedent, and authority combined to justify conclusively the proposal of the O'Conor Don, in this regard. Altogether, it was an honest effort to attain a fair and moderate solution of a difficult question, and if that question be not solved, the fault will not rest with the Irish people or the Irish Catholic Episcopacy. The reasons for making such an effort and helping it to a happy issue are, in my mind, irresistible, and clearly confessed to be so by the Bill which has just been presented for your Lordships' consideration. Utterly inadequate, as I believe it, to satisfy the essential conditions of the full and lasting settlement of a question of capital importance to Ireland and the Empire, it is, at least, an emphatic testimony to the necessity of somehow reaching such a settlement. Of that necessity the declaration and the acts of statesmen and Administrations of every Party had already made repeated avowal, placing it fairly beyond dispute. The Head of one Government deplored the scandalous condition of Irish University Education. The Chief of another negotiated as to the terms of a scheme for its improvement. There is almost universal assent that a grievance exists which must have a remedy; and that assent was never more emphatically expressed than by the late speeches of Ministers in " another place," and by the admission, inevitably involved in the production of this measure, that for the masses of the Irish people existing institutions do not properly supply the means of higher instruction. Trinity College is venerable in its antiquity, ample in its endowments, liberal in its spirit, and illustrious in the great men who have passed through its portals. The Queen's Colleges, established by Sir Robert Peel with an honest purpose to serve and satisfy the Irish community, have very able Professors, very ample funds, and very great attractions for their students in the way of scholastic honours and substantial rewards. But, excellent as these institutions are for all who can use them conscientiously, they have undoubtedly failed to supply the mental requirements of the Catholic people. The great majority of the Irish are Catholics, and from the existing Colleges they have no proportionate advantage. It may be said that the Roman Catholic population are poor and backward in intelligence, and less fit or eager for University training than their fellow-subjects of other creeds. Admitting that it may be so, still the disproportion is enormous and unnatural, and the evidence it gives of dissatisfaction with things as they exist is made conclusive by repeated de- clarations of thousands of the middle and higher classes of Catholics—Peers, magistrates, traders, and landowners—all affirming the necessity of a change; and, even more, by the abundant contributions of a poor community made, year after year for a quarter of a century, until, in the aggregate, they amount to nearly £200,000, for the purpose of establishing and supporting a Catholic University. But I need not multiply proofs of the feeling which, rightly or wrongly, pervades the Catholic multitude. This Bill, I repeat, is conclusive as to its existence, and conclusive also in demonstrating that means must be adopted, and means very different from those which it supplies, to remove that feeling by taking away the educational inequality and the educational injustice in which it has originated. With that feeling you may have little sympathy. You may say it is prompted by submission to authority which you do not respect. You may call it unreasonable or unwise if you will, and blame those who cherish it for foregoing those intellectual advantages which are undoubtedly within their reach, merely because they cling to a principle which asserts the paramount necessity of uniting religious with secular instruction. My Lords, it does not concern me to maintain the opposite conclusion. It is enough for my argument, if the majority of the Queen's Irish subjects are clearly shown to have convictions which, however formed and however estimated by others, disable them from profiting by institutions of the State to which their fellow men may honestly have access, and gain great benefits without compromise of conscience. In this country, they are I free to cherish those convictions; and to put them at disadvantage and subject them to disability, because they exercise their unquestionable right in doing so, is, in their judgment and in mine, a grievance and a wrong. They claim educational equality, and nothing more. Their claim is logical, constitutional, and righteous; and one way or another, at one time or another, by one Parliament or another, it will certainly be allowed. The full concession of that claim may be difficult, not only because of sectarian and Party prejudice, which makes men slow to recognize the right of others to think as freely as themselves; but because of the prestige which attaches to old seminaries, the completeness of their machinery, and their resulting superiority over competing institutions of shorter standing and less well-accoutred to fulfil their purpose. It may be difficult or impossible, for these or other reasons, during many a long year to achieve real educational equality in Ireland; but it behoves the State to promote it by all feasible means, and, so far as may be, to redress the balance between those who are content with purely secular instruction and those who are not, and to secure fair play for the latter by such assistance in satisfying their desire for good University training, as may enable them to maintain, at least, an honourable place in the competition of intellectual progress. Unless something of the sort be done, the demand of the Irish Catholics remains untouched, the inequality unrectified, and the injustice unredressed. If one section of the community receives from the State the completest apparatus for teaching and endowment, under conditions of which it cordially approves, and another is denied any use of the apparatus because its principles, rightly or wrongly, forbid it to fulfil those conditions, the disparity is flagrant, and, in a country where men are equal before the law, ought surely to be done away. Now, my Lords, I am sorry to say that, this being the real grievance to be dealt with, it is not even approached by the proposals of the Bill. The measure is substantially a reproduction of the Supplemental Charter of 1867, which was so violently denounced by the enemies of the Liberal Administration of the time, and destroyed by the efforts of the friends of the Queen's Colleges. And it is offered, when circumstances have wholly changed—after the negotiations with Lord Mayo, the rejection of Mr. Gladstone's Bill, and the acceptance of the principle of educational equality by many of the best and most influential Conservatives and Liberals in the House of Commons. It is a thing born out of time, and felt on all hands to be an unwelcome and unwished-for abortion. It offers merely the opportunity of obtaining degrees, in a new University, to all comers, wherever or by whatever means they have obtained the knowledge necessary for matriculation. But it gives no aid towards the attainment of that knowledge. It makes to the majority no compensation or counterpoise for the abundant provision secured to the minority. It avoids the difficulty, and ignores the complaint, with which the Legislature has been asked to deal. No doubt, the increase of facility for obtaining degrees is in itself a good thing; but even with reference to that, its sole concession, it really gives nothing to the people of Ireland. Foregoing the advantages of residentiary study, they have already the right to obtain degrees in Trinity College without living there, and those degrees will, for many a day, have a higher value than others comparatively discredited by the novelty of the institution which bestows them. They can graduate in the London University, passing at their own homes the examinations which are held in Ireland by its officers; and, again, degrees so obtained are certainly not less valuable than will be those of a University still in posse and as yet unnamed. This Bill gives the Irish Catholic nothing which be has not in better form already, and denies him everything for which he has asked and waited through years of deferred hope, and social disadvantage and pecuniary sacrifice. He demands educational equality, and his inferiority is continued, and Parliament is invited to sanction and perpetuate the wrong against which he has protested. My Lords, I say, in the words of a great journal not unfriendly to the Government, " This will never do." If any change was to be made, surely it should have aimed to supply admitted wants and content reasonable aspirations. The Bill is its own condemnation. Habemus reum confitentem. It is a solemn confession of the need of improvement, and it leaves things no better than they were. Why should this be? Why should one class of the subjects of the Realm, who loyally bear its burdens and sustain its interests as much as any other, be debarred from privileges which others enjoy, because they prefer religious education, and decline for their children education which is not religious? I remember, whilst the school controversy raged in England, feeling some sense of indignation when I heard a leading secularist at once haughtily and condescendingly declare that denominationalists might educate their children, if they pleased, according to their own principles; but that they must pay for the education out of their own pockets. The secularist and the denominationalist must pay the same taxes and sustain the same social liabilities; but the one should have his child instructed through the public money, and the other at his own expense. It seemed to me that there was as little of equity in such an arrangement, as of modesty in the pretension to such a preference by the State for one set of opinions, when all which consist with the welfare of the commonwealth should enjoy an equal favour. If this Bill should pass in its present shape, those who are desirous of religious education will stand precisely where they are, with an additional opportunity of scrambling for degrees as best they may; whilst Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges, to which, ex hypothesi, and on concession, they will have practically no access, will retain their great revenues and shower golden prizes of Fellowships and Scholarships and bursaries and exhibitions, on those who are so fortunate as to belong to them. They will continue to supply all the appliances and means of a perfect education, while the outside multitudes who cannot share in these excellent things will be left to pine and struggle, in the hopeless effort to achieve such knowledge as may enable them to compete on equal terms with their neighbours in the battle of life. Assume, what this Bill confesses to be true, that there are very many in Ireland whose convictions must put them in this position, and what have we but penalties still imposed for the free exercise of conscience, and premiums still bestowed for the profession of particular opinions? My Lords, I do not despair of seeing this Bill amended in its further progress. It is at present an ungainly skeleton. But it may easily be clothed with flesh and muscle, animated with life, and made pleasant to see and profitable to use. I still hope for the just and reasonable settlement which the Government has power to make, and from which it will earn gratitude and honour. Let it seize the opportunity of solving a vexed and embarrassing and dangerous question. Let it refuse to disappoint the awakened hopes of Ireland. It has made pregnant admissions; let it accept their cones- quences. It has confessed a grievance; let it be wise and generous in affording adequate redress.

THE EARL OFF LEITRIM

My Lords, I have not been trained at either of the Universities; but my anxiety to see this question settled is so great that I will, on this occasion, suffer my patriotism to overcome my diffidence. My Lords, when this measure was introduced into your Lordships' House, the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition interrogated the Government as to whether they were really in earnest in their desire to pass this measure this Session? The answer of the noble Earl the Prime Minister was significant, for he stated that it depended much upon the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) and his Friends whether or not this measure became law. I do not complain—bitterly, at all events—of the criticism which has been bestowed on this measure by noble Lords opposite. The Bill was criticized with some warmth by the noble and learned Lord who spoke last;Lord O'Hagan). He described it as inadequate and useless. I will go with him so far as the word " inadequate " describes the measure; but as to being " useless " I deny it. Then the noble Earl, also, who opened the debate, described it as inadequate; I go with him on those grounds—I think it is inadequate for the requirements of University Education in Ireland. My Lords, I think you will follow with some attention the criticism of noble Lords opposite—for I gathers with much satisfaction that really here was not any criticism hostile to the principles of the Bill. I congratulate the Government upon the basis upon which they have endeavoured to effect a settlement of this great question. I agree entirely with the principle of this measure; but I must point out that the question can only be settled by compromise, and I trust I shall not be considered presumptuous if I venture to indicate a way in which the difficulties may be removed. I suggest that they follow out the lines upon which they proceeded last Session in reference to the Intermediate Education Act. The question of endowment of any denomination will not then arise. I would also humbly suggest that in the matriculation examination for the new University some exhibitions might be given—say £50 or £100—to a certain number of candidates annually, to be continued for three years. That would enable them to pay for and obtain the higher education, and would eventually enable them to obtain a degree in the new University. Those exhibitions should be open to all —Protestants and Roman Catholics—though I do not deny that, probably, the larger number would be obtained by Roman Catholic students. I do not see why we should deny to Roman Catholics the higher education which at present is not within their reach, when they can obtain it by the arrangement recognized by the Intermediate Education Act. My Lords, for that purpose a grant and endowment from the Irish Church Surplus Fund might be made, as in the case of the Intermediate Education Act of last year. The amount required would not be much—.£15,000 or £20,000 would be sufficient—and I urge upon the Government not to deny that University Education which the people of Ireland ask for.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

hoped the Government would try to make some provision in the nature of endowment. He reminded their Lordships that if the present occasion were allowed to pass, the demands of the Irish Roman Catholics would have very materially increased when the question should come to be re-considered. Some further concession, he held, should, therefore, be made by the Government.

LORD INCHIQUIN

My Lords, I feel it my duty not to remain silent upon this matter, which is of the greatest importance to Ireland. I heard the statement which the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack made the other evening in introducing this Bill, and, while I thought the scheme of the Government was good as far as it went, I considered the provisions of the Bill to be totally inadequate to meet the claims of my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. Now, my Lords, I speak as a member of the Disestablished Church of Ireland, and as one entirely opposed to the doctrines of Roman Catholicism; but, .at the same time, I think the Roman Catholics of Ireland have a very serious grievance, and one which I am not at all surprised they should have brought forward on this occasion. I can only express my sincere regret that Her Majesty's Government have not looked the matter boldly in the face, and brought in a Bill that would have set the question finally at rest. An observation fell from the noble Viscount who spoke from the Ministerial Bench (Viscount Cranbrook), which appeared to me scarcely to be justified. He said there was perfect equality in Ireland in regard to this question of Irish University Education. I am not prepared altogether to go that length. There is no doubt whatever that the University of Dublin has been opened to everyone that may have a desire to go there; but by this time it must be well known that the University is practically a University mainly used by the members of the Disestablished Church of Ireland, and, therefore, I cannot say that the Catholics are placed upon the same footing. But, my Lords, it seems to me that it would be easy for the Government to proceed on the lines of the Intermediate Education Act of last year, which met with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Such an arrangement as that would provide that Roman Catholics could participate in prizes and Scholarships, and so place them upon the same footing as the members of the Disestablished Church; and, so far as my opinion goes, I think the Government can perfectly well use the Surplus Funds of the Disestablished Church for the purpose. I think, too, my Lords, that it would be a mistake to vote such a grant from the Consolidated Fund involving an annual application to Parliament, which would be most undesirable. I think, my Lords, it would be perfectly easy to pass such a scheme, and if it had been proposed I think it would have met with the approval of the large majority of the people of Ireland; but I fail to bring myself to believe that the present Bill will in any way meet the necessities of University Education in Ireland. I hope the Government will seriously consider what Amendments it will be satisfactory to adopt.

EARL SPENCER

My Lords, I always feel reluctant to trespass upon your Lordships' time; but I think I may claim some right on the present occasion to express an opinion upon this question, because I was Her Majesty's Representative in Ireland for nearly five years, and during that time I had an opportunity of gathering the opinions of Irishmen upon the subject; and, moreover, I took a part in the preparation of the Bill brought forward in the House of Commons by the late Government. I confess I was most disappointed when I heard the statement of the noble and learned Earl the other night in introducing this measure, because I felt that the Bill presented was not one which would satisfy the just wishes of the people of Ireland. I felt some surprise that the Government should have proposed such a measure, for I felt sure that the noble Earl at the head of the Government would know as well as anybody that it is no use dealing lightly with this question after its settlement had already baffled the attempts of the two Parties in the State, and had caused the defeat of an Administration at a time when it could boast of being one of the strongest the country has ever seen. So far as this debate is concerned, I see no reason to alter my opinion upon the subject; as the Government, since my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) opened the debate, has not led us to hope that any concession will be made to meet the difficulty. The noble Viscount on the front Ministerial Bench (Viscount Cranbrook) spoke of the Bill as a Bill which would settle this great and important question; and, since then, if nothing more was required to show that the provisions of the Bill were inadequate, there were no less than three noble Earls on the Conservative Benches who rose and expressed their dissatisfaction with the measure. We have already heard something of what the grievances of the Irish people are, and I feel quite sure that we have not underrated them. They are—That they cannot conscientiously send their children to Trinity College; they cannot send their sons for University Education to the C1ueen's Colleges. They have not confidence in the Governing Bodies of the C1ueen's Colleges and Dublin University—at all events, in the manner in which those Bodies regulate the examinations. Now, it may be said, and it has been said. that within the last few years a great measure had been introduced—namely, the removal of all tests from Trinity College, Dublin. I quite admit that, and that Catholics may now obtain the prizes which the College awards; and they may even look forward to the time when they may be able to take part in the government of the College. But this does not remove the grievance under which the Roman Catholics labour. They cannot hope to have their share in the Governing Body of Trinity College for many years, and they object to send their sons to a College where there is mixed education. The same observation applies to the C1ueen's Colleges. Now, as far as my individual opinion goes, I am favourable to the principle of mixed education. I believe that students may pass through it without the least danger to their religious faith. I believe that great good may be done by people of different faiths completing their education side by side, and that that religious rancour which has so often disturbed the peace of Ireland may be removed by that system. But we know that the Queen's Colleges were instituted upon these principles, and that it was hoped, at the time those Colleges were instituted, that the Roman Catholics would have been satisfied with them. But what do we find? We do not find that these Colleges have failed—on the contrary, they have done great good; but do we find the Roman Catholics approving the system upon which the C1ueen's Colleges were established? Far from it; you will find Roman Catholic Bishops denouncing these Colleges; the Roman Catholic organs in the Press condemn them, and the Roman Catholic people decline to use them. You cannot, therefore, say that the C1ueen's Colleges and the Queen's Universities have succeeded in the direction in which it was anticipated. It may be that a very large number of Roman Catholics make use of the C1ueen's Colleges. I quite admit that a considerable number of Irish Roman Catholics have done so. Consider in what a position they are when they go to those Colleges. It is necessary for them that they should receive a University Education, and the only means of obtaining it is by entering either the Dublin University or the Queen's Colleges. When they are placed under this necessity they very often have to disregard the advice and teaching of their spiritual advisers, and at the expense of their own feelings and conscience. But is it fair that they should be placed in this dilemma—that they should have to go against their own conscience in order to obtain this important part of their education? I maintain that in this they have a very great grievance, and that Parliament ought to offer them some means by which they can obtain a University Education without being placed in such a position. I should like to allude to two matters connected with the non-residents at Universities. An allusion was made to what was done at Trinity College with regard to nonresidents, where the students were permitted to take their degrees if they would come up and pass, I believe, eight examinations. This would, of course, remove a great many of the grievances which the Roman Catholics have; and yet do we find that of the large number of students availing themselves of this means of obtaining a degree there are many Roman Catholic students? I have not been able to obtain information up to the present time; but I know what were the numbers who were admitted by that mode in 1871. I believe I am correct in stating that in that year 194 students received the degree of bachelor of arts; 122 students attended the lectures, whereas only 72 attended no lectures. This, I think, will show to what extent non-resident students in the year availed themselves of the means open to them, and that amongst students at large this is not a favourite mode of examination. Now, we will just look how many Roman Catholics attended Trinity College. There were 11 Roman Catholic students, and only one Roman Catholic was non-resident. I believe we shall find that the Dublin University is not very much resorted to in Ireland for the purpose of obtaining a degree. I understand that the London University is willing to send over an Examiner on payment of £30 to examine non-resident pupils. But I know this—that up to the year 1868 there were only 59 students in the College of Carlow who used this means; and, therefore, from these facts, I think I have pointed out that a mere Examining University is not what is wanted in Ireland, and that some higher means of teaching than those at present possessed by the Roman Catholics is required. And now what is the remedy for the existing state of things that is proposed by this Bill, which I quite admit, as far as it goes, may be a good measure, but it is at present totally inadequate? A Roman Catholic would, under its provisions, be able to go to any Roman Catholic institution and get his education, and after that he could obtain a degree from the Examiners of the new University. But this would not remove the grievance. What the Roman Catholics say is this—" We have to compete in a race in which we are too heavily weighted. The Protestants are able to get the best possible education at Colleges endowed with State money, and where, as at Galway, Cork, and Belfast, the State has provided magnificent libraries and all things necessary to increase the educational advantages of these places; but we—the Roman Catholics—are entirely dependent on private munificence, and such facilities are with us almost entirely wanting." I think, therefore, that the grievance is a real one, and that the Roman Catholics are handicapped so severely that they have no chance. There is a very considerable grievance which this measure will in no way remove; but is it not possible for the Government to make it a measure of great importance? I concur with those who think it would be disastrous to depart from the principles that have been laid down against denominational endowments. It may be said that the only sect requiring educational endowments is the Roman Catholic sect. How are we to insure that some other sects will not make a similar demand in the future? Still, I feel sure that a remedy for the existing grievance can be found without infringing the principle I have referred to. I agree with the noble Lord opposite, who thought that measures ought to be secured for founding a Professorial Chair and making the University a teaching University, with Scholarships, bursaries, &c., and that all this could be done without violating the principles of endowment which Parliament had expressly approved. In conclusion, I protest against the attempt now made to carry a totally inadequate measure; and I urge Her Majesty's Government to so alter the Bill as to render it larger and more comprehensive, and one that will be worthy of Parliament, which has often shown that it knows how to increase the learning of the people.

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT

My Lords, I know perfectly well the great want there is of education—I mean University Education—for Catholics in Ireland, and I do hope that the Government will now boldly insert a clause into this Bill to endow the University.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is generally admitted that the question of University Education in Ireland is one which is full of difficulty; but there is, at least, this consolation—that at the outset we meet with a considerable amount of agreement. All are willing to concede that the present state of affairs in respect to the granting of degrees in Ireland is undesirable, and ought not to be continued. The principle upon which this country is governed, and upon which Ireland is certainly governed, is that we should not by penalties or deprivation attempt to move a man from the particular belief which he professes; but that, so far as we can, we should enable him to enjoy all the advantages which men professing other beliefs possess. It is admitted that an Irish Roman Catholic cannot get a degree except on conditions which are repulsive to him. The noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Spencer) doubts whether a mere degree will satisfy the Roman Catholic without an offer, at the same time, of money by which the instruction may be obtained of which the degree is the reward; but, in order to prove that, I thought the noble Earl furnished considerations which rather tended in the opposite direction. The noble Earl pointed out that there were at present two methods by which a Roman Catholic can get a degree without previously undergoing a collegiate course which is objectionable to his conscience. He might, he said, take advantage of the wandering examinations of the London University, or of the examinations of Trinity College without residing in it. But, as a matter of fact, he does not do so, and the noble Earl asks the reason why. The noble Earl himself furnished the answer, and it is this—that Trinity College, though nominally open to Roman Catholics, is governed exclusively, I believe, by Protestants, and it is by this Governing Body that the examinations are regulated; and, therefore, the examinations, although open, are not such as to command the confidence of Roman Catholics; and there is thus nothing surprising in the fact that they have not made use of these examinations. I was surprised to hear some of the observations of the noble Earl. He spoke of the examina- tions of the London University as if they afforded any adequate compensation for examinations in their own country. Place yourselves in the same position, and I would ask your Lordships what would be the feelings of those who now avail themselves of the advantages offered by the London University if they could only get those advantages from a University in Dublin? It is not merely a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, but one of sentiment; and there is nothing more natural than that Irish students should wish to have the advantages afforded by an Irish University which could confer degrees without imposing conditions disagreeable to their consciences. Though we are all very well agreed up to this point—that it is desirable to have some other machinery than that which now exists, in order to give to the Irish Roman Catholic a degree without imposing upon him conditions disagreeable to his conscience—the moment we step beyond this we find ourselves in the middle of difficulties which have hitherto proved insuperable. The Irish Lords who have risen this evening practically do not care about degrees at all—they say, " We want money." This money question lies at the root of the case. The Irish Roman Catholics insist that they will have no education of which religion is not a part. The people of this country, on the other hand, insist that no money should be given to support the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland. That is the difficulty on which all attempts to settle the question hitherto have been wrecked. Either we have been unable to satisfy the desires of the Roman Catholics for religious education, or we have been unable to meet the wishes of the people of this country, and so satisfy the feelings of a considerable number of constituents who are opposed to the endowment—I will not say of the religion of the Roman Catholics, but of any religion. In Ireland we are on enchanted ground. Of old, when a knight in sallying forth to rescue a princess passed over enchanted ground, the ordinary thing was for him to pass through a crowd of all the ghosts of other knights who had previously failed in the same enterprise. These ghosts were always good enough to warn him against attempting to do as they had done. We, too, in sallying forth upon this enchanted ground meet the ghosts of those who have failed before us. One after the other they get up; but, unlike the ghosts in the fairy tale, instead of warning us against following in their steps, the only moral they draw from their own disastrous efforts and melancholy fate is to tell us—" Go thou and do likewise." I heard the noble Earl who has just sat down state that he wished to make the proposed institution a teaching University. Probably he recollected that he was concerned in the drawing up of a Bill for establishing a teaching University, and possibly he will remember that he found it not so easy a matter to divorce secular and religious subjects. Perhaps the noble Earl can call to mind the controversies of that day about lectures on mental philosophy, and history, and the gagging clauses, which were proposed, and which, no doubt, still find a place in the lively recollection of noble Lords opposite. The experience of the past has proved to us that though, abstractedly, there would be very many persons who would admit the desirability of giving pecuniary help for the purpose of supporting secular University Education, which should bed open to all sections of the people of Ireland, yet the practical difficulty is to so arrange it without trenching in any degree upon the consciences of Roman Catholics on the one side, or upon the feeling of Protestant constituencies on the other. Those are the difficulties which we have to guard against. They are very great, and have hitherto defied solution. I do not say that they will always defy solution, nor do I use any despondent language; but what I wish to establish is that it is a matter of enormous difficulty, and one on which bitter antagonism and strong feeling are likely to be aroused. It is a matter of lengthened and difficult controversy; and with this prospect of lengthened and difficult controversy we are asked to introduce a large and comprehensive measure. If we had merely to deal with this question with your Lordships with that calmness, sobriety, and, I may say, brevity, which is characteristic of your Lordship's House, we might, perhaps, venture to confront the difficulty; and even to attempt a large and comprehensive measure connected with a bitterly controversial subject. But we have at present, in "another place," an extensive experience of the fate of large and comprehensive measures on bitterly controverted subjects; and if noble Lords wish us to bring forward a Bill which would be, in the amount of controversy and opposition it would assume, as ten to one to that displayed on the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, I can only say that I should prefer that that task were deferred until the nation relieves us of the burden which lies upon us. My Lords, I may be a gloomy prophet; but I suspect that the day for introducing large and comprehensive measures on controversial subjects is nearly over. The conventions which used to prevail in " another place" are broken, and the Rules which were held to be consistent with rapid legislation on important subjects no longer suffice for that purpose. It seems to me that in the present state of things it would be prudent to look to the proverb that " half a loaf is better than no bread;" and it is better to deal with such measures as there is a chance of finishing, and solve those problems of which the solution lay within our reach. We must he content with what Lord Palmerston used to call bit by bit reform." We must be satisfied even if our success is not all that we would desire; and if we do not meet all the wants indicated by the outcry that has been raised, we shall, at least, remove out of the way a grievance which has been urged many times, and which, some years ago, noble Lords opposite thought not unworthy of their exclusive attention, and we shall have advanced a very substantial step in removing such wrongs as Irish Roman Catholics can fairly complain of in reference to University Education in Ireland.

EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords, with respect to the gravity of which the noble Marquess has spoken, I think no one can complain of the Bill being " deficient," because it really contains nothing; but as to the merits of the question, I am entirely content with the three speeches which have been made upon this side of the House. It is quite true that those speeches were followed on the other side by two of the most remarkable debaters in Parliament. But I do not think they will consider that I am saying anything discourteous, when I say that they declined to grapple with the real merits of the question, and dwelt upon small points that do not, in the slightest degree, impugn the statements of my noble Friend. The noble Earl who opened the debate (the Earl of Kimberley) referred to a statement made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Beaconsfield), to the effect that, so far as regarded the progress of the Bill, it depended on what assistance I would render him. And that appeal being so directly made will, I think, justify me in saying a few words upon the subject. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India has just admitted that there is really a grievance in Ireland in the matter of University Education, owing to the Roman Catholics not being able to obtain a University degree in Ireland without violating their conscience; and, furthermore, that they should be left without endowment when other denominations are endowed. Well, the grievance being admitted, how is it met? It is met by the introduction of the Bill to which we are asked to give a second reading this evening. After seeing the Bill, I must confess that I am quite at a loss to understand what was the object of Her Majesty's Government in transferring the scene of action from the House of Commons to your Lordships' House; or why, when they only desired to give a clear explanation of their views on this question, the only result should be the introduction of a Bill of such extreme simplicity and brevity that it does not touch the real difficulty at all. I cannot think that that is the way to deal with the subject. The whole substance of the noble Marquess's speech was that the subject was one of very great difficulty. Whoever doubted it? But, my Lords, we naturally expect that when the Government undertake to declare their views to Parliament upon a question of difficulty, they will propose some means by which that difficulty will be removed. But, my Lords, as I have said before, I do not believe that the Bill contains the sole views of Her Majesty's Government. I cannot help recalling the words " or otherwise," which fell from the Secretary of State for India, or the words " at present," which the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) used on a previous occasion; and I cannot help remembering that when the Prime Minister made the decided statement that the Government would not sanctions endowments, hem said nothing whatever about grants. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) has taunted us with our failures. I admit the failures we made were great; but we did not shrink from proposing a large and comprehensive measure for the consideration of Parliament and the country. The noble Marquess said that what we had said was, "We have failed; go thou and do likewise." Well, I do say so in one sense—namely, go thou and do as you yourselves did last year, if you will carry out the principle adopted by yourselves last Session, we shall welcome you, and you will be warmly supported on both sides of the House. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India has reproached my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) for speaking against the Bill without moving the postponement of the second reading. I am glad he did not. I own, for my part, that I should be unwilling, if the Bill is purely and simply the whole plan of the Government, to vote for a measure which I believe to be utterly inadequate to the occasion; and, on the other hand, I feel reluctant to vote against the Bill, if, by so doing, I should prevent it from going to " another place," where the majority of the Irish people are more fully represented than in this House. I think, then, that my noble Friend was right in not wishing to impede the passing of the Bill. I appeal, however, to the Government to state at once what they are inclined to do by way of grants to supplement the measure, and whether they consent to act on the principles of last year, and not expose themselves to the imputation, to use a very vulgar expression, of " waiting to see which way the cat jumps."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Your Lordships heard the grounds upon which Her Majesty's Government introduced this measure so fully a few days since that I shall not detain your Lordships at any great length; but there are some observations which have been made in the course of this discussion to which I should like to refer before we leave the question. I will say, at the outset, that I do not wish to follow the noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Granville) in the observations he has made—which he, as Leader of the Opposition, is perfectly entitled to make —with regard to the proposals of Her Majesty's Government, or with regard to not offering any opposition or Amend- ment to the second reading of the Bill. I regard the question of University Education in Ireland with too much anxiety and concern to say anything in the shape of sarcasm when the question comes before your Lordships' House; and all I am anxious to do is to clear up the difficulties of the subject. One word in regard to the question of the Supplemental Charter. As it happens, there is all the difference in the world between this Bill and the Supplemental Charter, because the Supplemental Charter was proposed on a principle which was, I think, inconvenient—that of affiliating Colleges to the C1ueen's University; whereas this Bill studiously avoids that course. I desire to say, further, on the other hand, that the proposals of the Supplemental Charter met with the reprobation—and, certainly, with the disapproval—of Parliament. What were the circumstances under which that Supplemental Charter was granted? When the House of Commons was bent upon considering the question of University Education, suddenly, and after the Government had tendered their resignation, an addition was made to the Senate of the University, and a Supplemental Charter was issued, while the functions of the Government were almost suspended. That was the course which cast so much odium on the Supplemental Charter. It was not so much the Charter itself, as the circumstances under which it was proposed, that was objected to. Now, the observations which have been made to-night are really divisible into two heads—first, what the Bill does contain; and, secondly, what it does not contain. And, in regard to the first, I must say I have been somewhat surprised at my noble Friend saying that this Bill did nothing, and gave nothing, to the people of Ireland. I have listened for many years to speeches on the subject, and from many quarters, and I must say that I never yet heard any person complain of the position of University Education in Ireland who did not give as his first complaint—I do not mean as his only complaint, but as his first complaint—that no person in Ireland could obtain a University degree without going through the course either at Trinity or at C1ueen's Colleges; and then, when the Government have made a proposal that meets this difficulty, the noble Earl gets up and says that the Bill absolutely does nothing, and gives nothing, to the people of Ireland. I do maintain that those who urge that the Bill gives no increased facilities for obtaining degrees must be blind to the complaints made during the last 10 years. The noble Earl who commenced this discussion asked what it was we wished to do for Ireland? Those who have a dislike to go to the C1ueen's College may matriculate in Trinity College, Dublin, and they can obtain their degrees without residence. Yes; but how? Has the noble Earl stated the rules of Trinity College? Does he know that, by the rules of the College, the strident not resident within its walls must pay exactly the same sum of money—not any more, but not any less—than if he resided in the College? He must pay the same actual fee as if he resided in the College every month in the year. Now, can it be said that that is a solution of the difficulty which can be acceptable to any person who objects to reside there? You can get your degree; but you must pay the same fee as if you resided there. Nor is that all. In order to get his degree, the student must go up twice in the course of every year to be examined—and not to bed examined upon a standard of general reading, but upon specific books, which those in residence in the College are in course of reading in the lectures they receive. That is to say, he must submit himself to the curriculum of education in Trinity College, Dublin, which is the very thing objected to. You must read books just as if you were receiving lectures, and go up twice a-year as well for examination; and yet the noble Earl says there is no difficulty in obtaining a degree in Trinity College, Dublin. Then, he says, there is the London University which will examine in Ireland. But will they examine A B or C I) who wishes to be examined for a degree in Ireland? What the London University does is this—if any collegiate institution in Ireland tells the London University that there are a sufficient number of students there to make it worth their while to send over Examiners, and to provide for the expense of those Examiners, then there may be an examination held in that place for those students. But that is not the examination that every person in Ireland wishes to see, I ask what would be thought, if there was no London University, and a body of Examiners were offered to be sent from Ireland to examine in England under the same circumstances? Therefore, my Lords, I venture to say that the Bill, as regards what it contains, does meet a very great grievance—it meets the state of things which we have heard complained of year after year on this subject, and it meets it in a way which it is impossible for any noble Lord who has spoken to-night to find fault with. Now we come to the criticisms on what the Bill does not contain. That is a point to which I desire to address myself clearly and distinctly—and I beseech your Lordships not to be led away by high-sounding words—words which indicate that the matter has not been properly and carefully thought out by those who use them—and let us not content ourselves by saying that the difficulty is one which can be met without any trouble, and that any Government ought to be able to settle at once. I am glad that the noble Earl has admitted that it is a difficulty which is not to be spoken of in that way. Let us exactly understand what it is we have to meet, and what is to be remedied. The noble Earl who commenced the discussion tonight said there was no doubt that Trinity College, Dublin, and the Queen's Colleges were open to all, but that the education given there did not meet with the approval of the dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry they take that view; but it is perfectly open to them to do so—it is one which, so far as they are concerned, is perfectly justifiable, and I have no wish to shrink from conceding it. But, he continues, so much do they feel this that for a long period of years they provided large sums of money to support Colleges of their own, where the education should be that which they did approve of. If that argument means anything, it means this—that inasmuch as the education provided at the C1ueen's Colleges does not meet with the approval of the dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church, some means should be adopted by which money should be granted for the purpose of paying the expenses of a College, the education of which they shall approve. [" Hear, hear "] If that is not the necessary consequence of the observations of the noble Earl, I can only say I do not know why they were made. Let us consider that proposal for a moment—I do not say whether it is right or wrong; but, I say, let us look at it as practical men. It is perfectly idle for us, in dealing with it in the abstract, to say whether we should like to see such a proposal carried out or not. The question is—is it a proposal which, as a whole, Parliament would be likely to accept? I venture to say, beyond all doubt, that it is improbable that a proposal of that kind in the present day would meet with the consent of Parliament. Let it not be supposed that I am now speaking of the surplus of the Irish Church Fund as distinct from any other money. I am speaking not only of the surplus of the Irish Church Fund, but also of the Consolidated Fund. For the purposes of my argument, they are alike. Now, I find ready at my hand a most accurate definition as to temper and doctrine of Parliament on that subject. About 10 years ago—in 1868—a proposal was made by the Government in Office, by which a sum of money was to be provided by Parliament for the purpose of assisting a College the education of which would have met with the approval of the dignitaries of them Roman Catholic Church—a very remarkable proposal, and was made by Lord Mayo in the House of Commons. The debate upon it was adjourned several times, and, eventually, broke down, giving a starting-point to Mr. Gladstone for the attacks which he afterwards made on the Irish Church. And what did Mr. Gladstone say on the subject of providing public money for the purposes of supporting denominational Colleges? He said that not only at no period had Parliament voluntarily undertaken to support denominational University Colleges as was proposed, but that on every occasion during the last 20 or 30 years it had been actively engaged in the endeavour to get rid of all Votes which were directly connected with any sectional or denominational interest in the matter of education; and he referred to the Vote for certain Chairs at Oxford and Cambridge, which he pointed out had never been spontaneously voted by Parliament, and which, having -been removed after being the subject of constant contention, he found that there had been no Vote for 15 years for the purpose of any corresponding institu- tion. There was a great deal more on the same subject; but that was the general doctrine which was then laid down. You may disapprove it or not; but it expresses, I believe, the distinct and undoubted determination of the majority of the House of Commons; and, in my opinion, any measure, however great or high-sounding, which infringed that principle would only add another to the many shipwrecks which have occurred in connection with this question of Irish University Education. I would now ask your Lordships to consider the proposal which has been made to-night, so far as it indicates the application of money for the purposes of Colleges in which the education given is what I may call denominational. It is a proposal of a much wider character than one might at first sight suppose, because it relates not merely to Roman Catholic education, for there are other denominations in this country.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that what he said was he did not believe any Government would propose to endow denominational Colleges.

THEM LORD CHANCELLOR

I am quite aware of that; but I want to point out, as regards the grievance which is said to exist in Ireland, what is meant by the proposal to provide a remedy for it by the application of public money. I heard the noble Earl say that he did not see why a scheme should not be devised which would not be for the benefit of any particular College or denomination; but in accordance with which prizes and Exhibitions and Scholarships, perhaps Fellowships, should he given to all corners from Colleges of all denominations.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, his observations pointed to something such as had been done last year.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The speech of the noble Earl, if it means anything, means that the grievance which exists is one that must be met by granting money for denominational purposes; for, so far as the appreciation of money goes, it cannot be confined to this one denomination. Then, the noble Earl said—" I do not see why a scheme could not be devised that would not be for the benefit of any particular College or denomination, but which would go to all corners, no matter what their denomination, and which would include re wards, prizes, exhibitions, and, perhaps, fellowships—something similar in principle to that which was proposed last year."

THE EARL OFF KIMBERLEY

What I say is, that you should give encouragement to students to pass their examinations satisfactorily— that you should help them to do this.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That is just where the objection lies. The money would find its way to Colleges of a denominational character. If not a direct, that would be an indirect, method of endowment. I am obliged to speak upon another question in connection with this subject. A noble Friend (the Earl of Leitrim) said, in the course of the debate, that he would like to see power conferred upon the new University to grant prizes. Whatever we may think of the expediency of an arrangement of that kind, it does not in any way come under the head of denominational endowment. The London University has a grant made to it annually by the State for that purpose in the Votes of Parliament. For this year you will find that there are several thousands—I cannot remember the precise amount—to be paid to the London University, in order that they may be able to confer Exhibitions, Scholarships, and rewards of that kind upon those who pass examinations satisfactorily. I want to guard myself to show that it is to a state of things of that kind that my observations point. But that is not denominational education. That is a system of open rewards given to all corners capable of winning them, and it is one of the best ways of promoting education. If the University created by the Bill were to come to Parliament next year or the year after, and say that, for the purpose of advancing learning in Ireland, it would be highly desirable that we should arm it with the power to confer Exhibitions and rewards of the same kind—if the University came to Parliament with a demand of that kind, no objection would be taken by Parliament on the ground that it was a grant for denominational education. But that is quite a different thing from the other. It is said—" How can you refuse to provide for the payment of money which will reach denominational Colleges, when last year you passed the Intermediate Education Act?" The two questions axe perfectly distinct. In the case of intermediate education, there was no objection whatever on the ground that the grant would reach particular schools. It was a provision made for all the intermediate schools of Ireland. One of these schools wanted it as much as the others, because the mere payment of schools that had endowments was not worth speaking of. The object was to reach intermediate schools of every kind and description, and to make payment in respect of those which came up to a certain standard of proficiency. It was quite impossible you could make payments to the pupils themselves. But it would be very different in the case of University students, who, while boys at an intermediate school, will be competent to receive and apply the money to their own benefit. You cannot make a restriction of the kind in the case of University students; and, further, the payments in regard to the intermediate schools were payments made on the conditions that there should be a Conscience Clause similar to that applying in the case of primary schools. Therefore, the State makes the payment in Ireland upon the condition obtaining in primary schools. But it is quite impossible to apply the Conscience Clause in that way in University Education. It cannot be applied in the case of University Education, for these reasons. In the case of primary education the State inspects the schools, provides the books; & c; but in the matter of the University Education now desired, the very first demand is that it must not he under this inspection of the State, but under the control and inspection of the heads of the Church in which it is sought to make it denominationally in harmony. It is quite impossible that the Conscience Clause could in any way be applied in the case. It is because of the application of the Conscience Clause that, after full consideration by those opposed to all denominational endowments, the Intermediate Education Act received the sanction of Parliament. I undertake to prove that, so far as regards payment to the Collegiate institutions, this act would afford no precedent whatever. Now, my Lords, I own, in spite of what has been said as to what is not in the Bill, that I have a strong hope that the Bill will go forward, and I believe it will meet a very tangible want, or grievance, if you choose to call it by that name. I believe that what is wanted and demanded now, whatever we may think of it in the abstract, is a demand to which Parliament is not prepared to assent.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

I rise only for the purpose of clearing up some misconceptions into which the noble and learned Earl seems to have fallen. He said the Intermediate Education Act could not be taken as a precedent for the case of University Education; and he gave as one of his reasons why it did not apply, that direct payments could be made to young men at Universities, but not to boys attending any of the schools under the Act of last year; inasmuch as the boys were not at an age at which they would know how to dispose of the money, therefore it was necessary to give result fees in the Intermediate Schools. But, last year, the Government made provision for both these purposes. They provided for Scholarship Exhibitions, and also for payments for results. The second point which, in the noble and learned Earl's view, constitutes an important distinction between the case of higher education and intermediate education was that in the one case you could inspect, and in the other you could not. Unless I have entirely misapprehended the Bill of last year, there is no provision for the inspection of intermediate schools at all —so that this argument, too, falls to the ground. Again, says the noble and learned Earl, you not only inspect intermediate schools, but you put them under a Conscience Clause, and you cannot have that in the case of a University. If you require a Conscience Clause, I am not hero to object to it. The noble and learned Earl will find, on again looking back to the history of this question, that the Irish Bishops, in their communications with Lord Mayo, stated that they were ready to open their institutions to Protestants, if they chose to attend, and thus that objection, too, disappears also.

Motion agreed to; Bill read 2^a accordingly, and committee to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.