Lords Sitting of 27 March 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Petty Customs (Scotland) Abolition Act Amendment * (33); Poor Law Amendment Act (1876) Amendment* (34); Tenant Right (Ireland) * (35); Divinity School (Church of Ireland) (36).
Second Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Order (Blackwater, Essex) * (29).

DUBLIN UNIVERSITY—DIVINITY SCHOOL (CHURCH OF IRELAND) BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE*rose to call attention to the Report of the Dublin University Commissioners of 1878, and to present a Bill, and said: My Lords, the Report of the Dublin University Commission, to which I am about to call your Lordships' attention, dealt with several matters; but to only two of these, relating to the Divinity School, and the power of the University to confer Degrees in Theology, need I refer at any length. The other matters, which I may have to mention incidentally, related to the amount of compensation received by the College for the loss of its advowsons; the remedies to be provided for the injury caused, as regards promotion amongst the Fellows, by the loss of patronage of the livings; and the proper mode of disposing of the Advowson Compensation Fund.

  1823
  I will read that part of the reference to the Royal Commissioners which related to the Divinity School—
  "And whereas by the Dublin University Tests Act, 1873, the position of our said College and of the University of Dublin, as regards the teaching, and granting of Degrees in the Faculty of Theology, has been in some respects modified.… We authorize you to be our Commissioners for inquiring into the offices of Professors and Lecturers in Divinity in our said College and University, the endowments and emoluments, either of private or public foundation connected with the same respectively, and into the mode of conferring degrees in the Faculty of Theology in our said University; and into the expenditure of our said College and University in connection with the Divinity School; and whether it would be proper that the same respectively should be continued, or other provision made in lieu thereof."
  I must now shortly give your Lordships some account of the history of the Divinity School.
  The exact date of the foundation of the Regius Professorship is unknown, but it must have been nearly co-existent with the University, for it is known that Luke Challoner, one of the three original Fellows named in the patent of 1591, was the first Professor.
  The celebrated James Ussher, afterwards Archbishop of Armagh, whose reputation was not merely Irish, but European, succeeded him as Professor in 1607.
  No addition to the staff of the Divinity School was made till 1718, when Archbishop King's (of Dublin) Lecturer was founded?
  The first Assistant to the Regius Professor was appointed in 1783.
  The first Assistant to Archbishop King's Lecturer was appointed in 1833, and there are now nine Assistant Lecturers, or, at least, there were a year or two ago.
  The Professorship of Biblical Greek was founded in 1838, and that of Ecclesiastical History in 1850.
  Of these officers, part of the salary of Archbishop King's Lecturer is paid by the interest of the Private Endowments by the Archbishop, the proportion varying from £35 to £52 9s. 11 d.in different years.
  In 1833 the salary was made up by the College to £700 a-year, paid out of the Decrements—that is, the fees payable by all students.
  The Professor of Ecclesiastical History has been paid for the last 15 years £100
  1824
  a-year, out of the interest of two endowments of £1,000 each by the late Lord John Beresford, Lord Primate, and also Chancellor of the University, the balance probably being funded.
  The other salaries are paid out of the College Funds. The salary of the Regius Professor was fixed by King's letter of Car. II. at £80 a-year Irish, subsequently raised to £500 and £700, and in or about 1814 to £1,200 British; but since 1858 he has received £1,212, £12 compensation for some Degree fees having been then added.
  Archbishop King's Lecturer receives the balance of his salary from those funds; in 1877 this amounted to £655 5s. 7d.
  The Assistant Lecturers received in that year £472 10 s.; in the two previous years, £460.
  The Professor of Biblical Greek receives £100 a-year out of the same funds.
  There are no endowments by the Crown in the Divinity School; but there are some private endowments—scholarships, exhibitions, and prizes—amounting to £ 188 a-year. There are also some prizes given by the College, varying in amount, but coming to some £300 to £400 a-year. The total annual expenditure by the College on the School was, on an average of three years ending November, 1877, £2,867 16 s. This, with the private endowments, gave the School an income of over £3,000 a-year.

  The Divinity School has always been governed by the Board of Trinity College—that is, Provost and seven Senior Fellows.
  It has been contended in some quarters that the connection of the Divinity School with the Irish Church is of comparatively recent date. It has been pointed out that the Statute of 1 Geo. III., which regulates Professorships of Divinity, refers to the "juventus academica" as a whole, and goes on to speak of those especially who are destined for Holy Orders. Also that Archbishop King's endowments, made some years earlier, were to found a Divinity Lecture for the instruction of the Bachelors of Arts; and it is inferred that at the time there was no special school for the instruction of the Clergy. I shall have something more to say about this presently.
  In 1790 the Irish Bishops drew up a list of books, in which they decided to examine candidates for Holy Orders, and

  1825
  sent it to the Board, who, in their turn, recommended the Divinity Lecturers to prepare students in these books. At the same time, 11 out of 22 of the Irish Bishops signed an agreement that they would not ordain any candidate for Holy Orders who had not attended one course of lectures by the Assistant Divinity Lecturer, the Divinity Lecturer, and Regius Professor respectively. This is said by some to be the first apparent connection between the Irish Church and the Divinity School Lectures. The Divinity School was placed on its present footing in 1833. All the Irish, and the majority of the English, Bishops required the Divinity Testimonium of the College from graduates as necessary condition of ordination.
  Not unfrequently Presbyterian ministers have received part of their theological education in the School. In several instances the Presbyterian Church has taken a year's attendance in lieu of a year's attendance in their own school at Belfast; and there have been a few cases of ministers of other Protestant denominations attending the School.
  Formerly, all the Fellows of Trinity College, with two or three exceptions, were obliged to take Holy Orders within a short time after obtaining their Fellowships. Since the death of Lord John Beresford, Lord Primate, in 1862, this obligation, which was enforced by the Visitor—that is, the Chancellor of the University, has not been so much insisted on. In fact, no Fellow has taken Orders since 1864, the Chancellors who succeeded Lord John having, for reasons which they considered sufficient, not pressed the matter. The obligation was entirely removed by the Dublin University Tests Act of 1873. That Act provided that no person should be required, in order to hold any office, &c., in the College, to belong to any particular Church, sect, or denomination, or to take Holy Orders; but the word "office" was not to apply to Professors and Lecturers in Divinity as long as the University should continue to give instruction in Theology.
  In 1874, the year after the passing of the Act, the General Synod of the Irish Church appointed a committee to consider the position of the Church with regard to the Divinity School, and the result was that they entered into communication with Her Majesty's Government on the subject. A deputation
  1826
  waited on the noble Earl at the head of the Government in 1876, and in 1877 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into certain matters connected with the University of Dublin, including that of the Divinity School, and the power of the University with regard to conferring Theological Degrees. Six persons were appointed on the Commission—one Member of either House of Parliament, two persons intimately connected with the College—namely, an ex-Fellow and Professor, who had also been a Judge of the Irish Encumbered Estates Court (Dr. Longfield), and an actual Fellow of the College (Mr. Galbraith). Also, a Judge of the Landed Estates' Court, who represented Roman Catholic interests, and an eminent Queen's Counsel, who belonged to one of the Protestant Denominations which had dissented from the Presbyterian Church.
  The Commissioners found that a strong opinion existed in favour of retaining the connection between the School and the College; and, at the same time, it was generally felt that the School could not remain on its present footing.
  Suggestions were made from various quarters as to the best course to pursue.
  I. By the Divinity School Committee of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland. They asked—
  That the annual sums hitherto expended on the School of the College should be capitalized, and the amount placed in trust in the hands of the Representative Body. They did not, however, wish entirely to sever the present connection between the School and College. They pointed to the Advowson Compensation Fund as a convenient source from which their scheme of capitalization might be met, the present income being thus left free for the general purposes of Trinity College.
  II. The Board of Trinity College gave the Royal Commissioners the text of certain resolutions which they had passed with regard to the future of the Divinity School—namely—

  "(a) That the Students in the Divinity School shall be allowed to continue, as at present, to have the use of lecture-rooms in Trinity College for Theological instruction, provided that the lecturers are subject to ordinary collegiate discipline, and that they accommodate their time of lecturing to the requirements of secular instruction in Trinity College.

  "(b) That the Board of Trinity College are willing to confer a similar privilege on any

  1827
  other religious body, desirous that its candidates for Orders shall be instructed in Trinity College.

  "(c) That in fixing the qualifications for Theological Degrees the Board are willing to accept the certificate of any of the Theological Schools so placed in connection with Trinity College, as a sufficient testimonial of the candidates' Theological acquirements.

  "(d) That the control and management of the Divinity School of the Church of Ireland be transferred to a Council appointed by the Church of Ireland, reserving the statutable rights of the existing Professors and Lecturers."

  "(e) That on the vacancy of any Professorship or Lectureship, a sum equal to the salary and payment made to such Professor or Lecturer be paid annually to the Representative Body of the Church of Ireland towards the maintenance of the Divinity School on the following condition—namely,'That the Students of Trinity College shall continue to receive instruction in the School, as hitherto, without charge.'"

  The two last resolutions were carried at the Board by 5 to 3, and were passed on a different occasion from the three first resolutions.
  The Board communicated the foregoing five resolutions to the Divinity School Committee, who, in their turn, passed the following resolutions:—
  "1st. That the Divinity School Committee do very gratefully accept the resolutions of the Provost and Senior Fellows on the subject of the Divinity School, and request them to put the matter in the hands of their Law Advisers, for such ratification as may be requisite to insure the legal permanence of the arrangements.
  "2nd. That the Divinity School Committee respectfully suggest to the Board the advisability of effecting the security of the pecuniary part of the arrangement, by capitalizing the income requisite for maintaining the Divinity School, and handing over this capital in trust for that purpose."
  The Board of Trinity College considered these resolutions on 31st May, 1876. They agreed to the first; as regards the second, they, on that occasion, were evenly divided on it, and on a later occasion negatived it by 5 to 3.
  III. Suggestions were made to the Royal Commissioners by several of the Fellows, including, apparently, the original minority on the Board, which being in the nature of objections to the plan of the Board, I will deal with presently.
  IV. Dr. Salmon, the Regius Professor, made some suggestions for a mixed Governing Body, which he afterwards withdrew. He, however, thought it important that the obligation to select the Regius Professor from amongst the Fel-
  1828
  lows and ex-Fellows should be removed, and that the office should be open to the best qualified persons wherever they could be found.
  The recommendations of the Royal Commissioners will be found to be, up to a certain point, substantially the same as the proposals of the Board. They recommended that the government of the School should be handed over to a Council appointed by the Church; that the income should be deal with as suggested by the Board; that the offer of the Board to allow the practical connection between the College and the Church by the use of the lecture-rooms to continue, should be accepted, and that the Undergraduates should have an absolute right to attend the lectures without charge. The Commissioners, however, went beyond that, and added a recommendation that the annual income of £2,867 16 s. should be made a charge, not upon the rents of the College as it was at present, but that it should be made a charge on the annual interest arising from the compensation money received by the College for the loss of its advowsons. That compensation money amounted, with interest, to about £140,000, and produces an income of rather more than £5,000 a-year.
  I now come to describe the Bill which I am about to present to your Lordships. It is a Bill to provide for the government and future management of the Divinity School, hitherto in connection with Trinity College and the University of Dublin. There is, of course, the usual Preamble, describing what has been done heretofore. Clause 3 provides for the transfer of the Divinity School, and its government, control, and management, from Trinity College to the Representative Body, who shall receive the funds to be paid in trust. Clause 4 saves the rights of the existing Professors and Lecturers. We know that none of them will consent to come under the control of any new body. We leave it also optional with them whether they will change their paymaster or not. Clause 5 provides for the transfer of the private endowments, and Clause 6 for the transfer of the payments heretofore made by Trinity College, giving power to commute them at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. Clause 7 secures that students in Trinity College shall continue to receive instruction in the

  1829
  School as heretofore, without the payment of fees. Clause 8 enables the Representative Body, with the approval of the General Synod, to appoint a committee to govern the School. Clause 9 provides that the School may have the continued use of buildings within the College for lecture-rooms. Clause 10 provides for a similar use of the rooms by the Divinity Schools which may be founded in connection with the College by other religious denominations; whilst Clause 11 provides for the maintenance of the Faculty of Theology in the University.
  The Schedule contains a list of the private endowments.
  I now wish to point out some of the objections that will unquestionably be made to my proposal. I do so, in the first place, because I wish to be perfectly fair; and, in the next place, because I know that my case is not stronger than its weakest part; and although some of the objections that are made to it are possessed of more or less plausibility, I hope to convince your Lordships that they are really not of such force as to put a stop to this measure. The first class of objections come from persons who object to any dealing with the Divinity School, unless they could have the whole University question settled in the manner desired by themselves. I do not suppose I shall have to contend very much against such objections in this House—if I do, I had better reserve my defence to a later stage of the Bill; but in regard to this particular class of objections, I would appeal to their generosity, and ask them to consider whether, having had the Maynooth Question settled on very liberal terms, they would wish to prevent the Church of Ireland receiving equally fair treatment, and whether they think that irritating an important section of their fellow-countrymen is the best way of obtaining, not, perhaps, all they want, but an equitable settlement of what, I grant, they have a right to ask for. The second class of objections are those which are shadowed forth in Judge Flanagan's and Mr. Porter's dissent to the Report of the Commission. They took the same view which was taken in Mr. Gladstone's University Bill in 1873, for in that Bill it was proposed entirely, and in the fullest possible manner, to sever the Divinity School from the College, and also
  1830
  to abolish the Faculty of Theology, handing over to the Representative Body 15 years' purchase of the annual income of the School, which I suppose was calculated in some way on the value of the life-interests of the Professors and Lecturers; and also, together with the private endowments, the right of the Church to which nobody disputed, £1,500 to provide buildings elsewhere. Although I have heard plenty of hostile criticism upon the Report of the Commissioners, I have never seen a single newspaper or magazine, or heard of more than one individual on the other side of the Channel, who supported this proposal of the dissentient Commissioners. They objected, moreover, to the amount proposed to be given as compensation. They thought that, owing to the diminished number of Divinity Students since before the passing of the Irish Church Act, it was too much. They particularly objected to that part of the salary of Archbishop King's Lecturer, about £655 per annum, being compensated for, which was paid out of the Decrements. Now, as regarded the last point, it was simply a matter of internal convenience and arrangement. In 1833, the Board was anxious that the late Dr. O'Brien, afterwards Bishop of Ossory, should take the appointment. They thought that his great reputation would attract students to the University, and so swell the fees, and they therefore determined to increase the small private endowment up to £700 a-year. As this could not legally be charged on the rents of the College estates, as a mere matter of convenience they charged it on the Decrements, or fees payable by all the students.
  I now come to the last class of objections—those of some of the Fellows of the College. Those objections will be found in Appendix VII. to the Report, and they will also be found restated in a paper which, I have no doubt, some of your Lordships have seen. I have lately had an interview with two of these gentlemen, who came to me to know exactly what I wanted to do, and who put me in full possession of their views.
  It is said that the Report of the Commissioners was contrary to the weight of evidence. I cannot agree with that assertion. I admit that it is perfectly true that the Commissioners set on one

  1831
  side suggestions which were made to them by some of the Fellows, both as regards the Divinity School and other matters; but I contend that it is not correct to say that the Commissioners, in adopting the proposals which were originally made by the Board of Trinity College, who are persons of great weight, and persons whose opinion ought to be respected, and are, moreover, the Body which had a right to make them to the Divinity School Committee, which were supported by the Provost and Vice-Provost, and which the Board laid before the Commissioners, together with the reply of the Divinity School Committee accepting their proposal, and a report of the Board's action thereupon, as part of their evidence—it is not correct, I affirm, to say that the Commissioners, in adopting this proposal, reported against the weight of evidence.
  It is again said that there is no necessity to deal with the question at present, and that the proposal now made is opposed to the wishes of the general body of the Graduates of the University, and of the majority of the members of the Church. Now, as regards the time, five years have elapsed since Mr. Gladstone's unsuccessful attempt to settle the matter, and the Church is naturally getting uneasy. No doubt, there are some Fellows of the College who oppose the measure. I cannot exactly say how the matter stands with regard to the general body of the Graduates; but this I do know—that the Governing Body of the Church—and the Synod represents the Church in this matter—for it is a most strictly representative assembly—has passed resolutions in favour of this proposal, and they have, through their Divinity School Committee, intrusted the duty of introducing the question in your Lordships' House to myself and my noble and reverend Friend (Lord Plunket), who presides over the See of Meath. At any rate, I think that the majority of the members of the University, who are members of the Church, are in favour of the present proposal. It is also said that what is now proposed means the separation of the School from the College. Now, as I have already remarked, there will only be a partial separation in the sense of government, and in the sense of payment of salaries; but the Undergraduates will remain in the position they at present occupy, and
  1832
  all other things will remain unaltered. Under the circumstances, it is thought that the present proposals are for all practical purposes the best that could be drawn up. It was said, further, that the effect of what is proposed in the Bill will be to remove a Faculty from the University. That I entirely dissent from. I can speak with authority in the matter, and I know that the Royal Commissioners took particular pains to prevent this result, and proposed a plan for appointing Examiners in Divinity as an alternative for the plan proposed by the Board. There is a clause in the Bill to provide that, as regards the Faculty of Theology, matters shall remain unaltered. Again, it is argued in opposition to the Bill that the Board of Trinity College in this matter are in conflict with the University Council and the General Body of the Senate. Of course, I can say nothing about that. All I know is that the Commissioners had certain evidence placed before them. The Board of Trinity College made certain proposals, and in the most formal manner laid them before the Commissioners as their evidence.
  Moreover, it is argued that if the connection between the Divinity School and the College ceases to exist, the services in the College chapel cannot be carried on. I believe it is true that the services are now conducted by the Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers in the Divinity School; but in Cambridge, where the Divinity School has nothing to with the Colleges, services are carried on in the College chapels. In my own College (Trinity) the services were usually not even performed by the Clerical Fellows; but two persons called "conducts" were appointed for the purpose, who were not Fellows, but who received salaries, rooms, and commons. I can see no necessary connection between the Divinity School and the chapel services. It appears to me to be mainly a question of expense, and I do not see much force in this objection.
  There is, however, another objection of very considerable importance; but it has not been very prominently put forward. The reason, however, is obvious. It is because it is a matter in which some Fellows are personally interested. It is, however, alluded to in Mr. Gray's evidence before the Commission. The objection to which I refer is that the

  1833
  College would lose the patronage of the Regius Professorship, and of Archbishop King's Lectureship, if the present Bill were carried into law. It has been said to me—"You might as well abolish two Fellowships." Now, I admit that probably the Regius Professorship, which is worth £1,212 a-year, may probably "take out" a Fellow—a Senior Fellowship being only worth about £1,100 a-year. But I am not so sure about Archbishop King's Lectureship—which is only worth £700 a-year—doing so; because, previous to the passing of the Irish Church Act, the College livings had, to a great extent, ceased to induce Fellows to retire, and as recently as 1867 a valuable living, worth over £1,000 a-year—with which I used, before the alterations in Ecclesiastical arrangements consequent on the passing of the Church Act, to have some connection— I mean the living of Drumroagh, which includes the town of Omagh—was refused by all the Clerical Fellows—even those whose incomes from the College were only worth £200 or £300 a-year. It seems to me, however, to be hardly a worthy way of dealing with this great office of Regius Professor to treat it merely as a retiring pension for a Fellow, and as a means of promoting circulation in the lower part of the body of Fellows.
  If the recommendations of the Commissioners are carried out, and the annual income payable to the Divinity School is commuted, some additional income will accrue to the College over and above the payments now made to the School, and which will be set free for general College purposes. The College invested parts of the Advowson Compensation Fund in buying up rent-charges. The rest—about £96,000—which represented the compensation for the livings granted by King James I., they invested in the Government Funds, where it only produces 3¼ per cent interest. The annual payment of £2,867 16 s. a-year, if capitalized at the rate of 4 per cent, could be bought up for about £72,000; and the College could thus, for a sum of money now producing them only some £2,200 a-year, get rid of a charge of nearly £2,900 a-year.
  There is another matter to which I desire to refer, and that is a resolution of the University Council, which was passed on the 5th of March. The resolution was proposed by one of the
  1834
  gentlemen who called upon me, and it put in the fairest possible manner how some of the Fellows of the College regarded this proposal. The resolution was as follows:—
  "In view of the large requirements of the University for educational purposes, it is, in the opinion of the Council, most undesirable that Trinity College should be deprived of any funds for the endowment or maintenance of any Professorial School of which they may cease to have control."
  There was, however, this rider to the Motion—
  "Providing suitable endowment or maintenance can be provided for such School from any other source primarily liable."
  This rider seems to me to concede a good deal that I contend for, and it evidently points at "the surplus" of the Irish Church Funds. Now, the Royal Commissioners were expressly excluded, by the way in which the Commission was drawn up, from going into the matter of the surplus revenues of the Irish Church; and, although some of the Fellows of the College suggested that compensation should be supplied from this source, they—the Commissioners— had no right to go into the question.

  I know that some people differ from me; but I do not think that, as far as these payments are concerned, the "surplus" is "primarily liable," although I do not say but that there might be some matters over and above them, as regards which the Church might fairly look for compensation from this source. Maynooth, and the Regium Donum, and the Presbyterian Widows' Fund, no doubt, received compensation from the funds of the Irish Church; but that was because Parliament chose to apply those funds to the purpose, and so to relieve the Imperial taxpayers, instead of charging the compensation to the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  My Lords, the Bishops of the Church of Ireland will in future be elected by the Diocesan Synods—by the majority in those Synods—five of them have already been so; and it is reasonable to suppose that they will not ordain candidates, should those candidates have been instructed in a Theological School in whose teachers the great majority in the Church may not have confidence.
  I will call a witness of greater authority than myself, and that is the Provost.

  1835
  The Provost of Trinity College is strongly in favour of the present proposal. He is a man of great weight, of high character, and he is well known in the University world. He has in a recent pamphlet adduced very strong reasons why wisdom prompted the adoption of the proposal now presented to the House, and he strongly combated the objections to which I have called your Lordships' attention.
  The Provost—speaking of "separation," of course, in the limited sense proposed by my Bill—says that—
  "The inevitable result of the University Tests Act is to separate the Divinity School of the Church of Ireland from Trinity College. The existence of the present connection is absolutely dependent on the Bishops; and it is evident they would not recognize as a requisite for ordination the teaching of a School the members of whose Governing Body were not of necessity members of the Church of Ireland, and in which the clerical element must ere long be effaced."
  He shows that the Act of 1869 disestablished at once the Divinity Schools of the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Churches, making liberal provision for their future maintenance; whilst, owing to the connection between the Divinity School of the Church of Ireland and the College, legislation respecting that School was naturally deferred till the College itself came to be dealt with. Accordingly, Mr. Gladstone, in his Bill of 1873, proposed to make provision for the future of the School, though on a far less liberal scale than he had done for Maynooth.
  The Provost shows that the College, by having become voluntarily secularized—for the names of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Plunket) were on Mr. Fawcett's Bill—has placed itself in a position in which it can no longer perform its duty as respects the Divinity School, and it ought, therefore, to place it in the hands of those who can do so. He combats the argument about the "surplus," and he points out that B has no right to look to C to pay the debt he owes to A.
  He points out that it appears to be forgotten that the College would really lose nothing by the proposed arrangement. It might at first sight appear that the College might be a gainer if the debt were paid by some other party; but it would only be an apparent gain,
  1836
  because students who were candidates for Orders would no longer come to the University, if there were to be a Theological College outside it—they would be too poor to attend both—and he thinks that the injury would be likely to re-act on the other professional Schools.
  My Lords, I have no desire—and I think I can speak also for those with whom I am acting—to injure Trinity College in any way. For my own part, I have the utmost admiration and respect for that great institution; and I think that the Commissioners had no wish to deal with the College in any arbitary or unfair manner. One of them (Dr. Longfield) was an ex-Fellow of the College, and is a man of great weight and judicial experience. Another Commissioner was a Fellow of the College; he is at present very near the Board, and he might soon expect to take part in the government of the Divinity School. The promoters of the Bill do not wish to bring about an entire separation between the College and Divinity School, or to set up a Theological College; what they want is to prevent it. They only strive for such a separation as should secure the income of the Divinity School from being meddled with by Parliament, or anyone else, and should secure that the appointment of teachers and the government of the School should be in the hands of those who possessed the confidence of the Church of Ireland. I contend that the Divinity School is as much the School of the Church as of the University. Formerly all the Fellows of the College, with two or three exceptions, were clergymen; and the Statute of Geo. III., which speaks of the teaching of sacred literature in connection with the academic youth, goes on to speak of those especially who are destined for Holy Orders, for which end, principally, the College was founded; the Orders being, of course, the Orders of the Established Church, for there was then no other Church in connection with the College. The members of the Church of Ireland would have been very glad if Her Majesty's Government could have seen their way to take up this question; but, for reasons given elsewhere, they were not able to do so. I feel the responsibility I have incurred in taking charge of this question—a question which has assumed so much importance.

  1837
  The Church of Ireland—though it has entered upon a period of great financial difficulty, owing to recent legislation—has lost none of its importance and usefulness. All I now ask for is that simple justice should be done to the Church, and that she may be secured the means of keeping up a constant supply, not only of pious and godly, but also of learned ministers. I have now to present the Bill. I do not propose to ask your Lordships to read it a second time at a very early period, because, in the first place, the Easter Recess is fast approaching, and, in the next place, the Synod of the Church is soon to meet, and I have no doubt the members of it would give their utmost attention to any suggestions that may be made by any of your Lordships. I also hear that the Provost, upon further consideration, thinks that a Professorship of Divinity should be preserved in the College, and probably a proposal may be made to the University Council to that effect. I now move the first reading of the Bill.
  Bill to make provision for the future control and management of the Divinity School heretofore connected with Trinity College and the University of Dublin—Presented (The Earl of BELMORE).
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 1a"
  LORD PLUNKET*: My Lords, as this is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships, and as I am now the only Bishop of the Irish Church who occupies a seat in your Lordships' House, I would ask for your kind indulgence as I make a few remarks on the Bill which has just been introduced by my noble Friend (the Earl of Belmore).
  The object of the Bill now before the House, as I understand it, may be briefly stated thus—It proposes to transfer to the Irish Church the endowments and the control of the Divinity School of Trinity College. But it proposes, at the same time, to do so in such a way, and under such conditions, as not to sever thereby the intimate relationship which has for so long and so happily existed between those two Bodies.
  I hope presently to show that this Bill, if carried into law, will have a tendency to promote union rather than separation between the Church and the University, and that the proposed transfer will con-
  1838
  fer a benefit, even financially, on the University by which the transfer will be made. But, in the first place, I desire to call attention to the claim which, quite apart from such considerations, the Church of Ireland has upon the State, and upon the University too, for some such intervention and action on her behalf as that contemplated by the present Bill. In advancing this claim, I do not wish to be regarded as making an ad misericordiam appeal for any special bounty on behalf of my Church. My object is rather to speak of an outstanding debt of compensation to which that Church has, as it seems to me, an indefeasible right. Nor do I desire to be understood as basing this appeal on any ground of Party or religion. The subject is fortunately one which does not involve any Party issues; and, as regards religion, I shall not, I trust, make any demand which I would not be willing, under similar circumstances, to concede to others, however widely they might differ from me in their religious views.
  And now I may, I think, assume, as an axiom of political justice, that if the State sees fit to adopt legislation for the benefit of the community at large, and if that legislation places at a serious disadvantage any particular Body in the community, it then becomes the manifest duty of the State, at the earliest possible opportunity, to provide some sort of compensation for the loss so sustained. If this principle be true, I would now apply it to the case of the Irish Church, and her Divinity School.
  Until quite recently, the Irish Church was a State Church, and her Divinity School was under the control of another State Institution—a University, whose constitution was based upon principles strictly identical with her own. Such a relationship was, under the circumstances, a perfectly natural one, and, as a matter of fact, it worked most harmoniously. But recent legislation has altered considerably the position both of the Church and of the University. The Church has been separated from the State, and, as is absolutely necessary in the case of a Voluntary Church, the regulation of her affairs now rests with a Governing Body of her own choice. Under such circumstances, it appears to me that, even if no change had meanwhile taken place in the constitution of the University, the Church of Ireland,

  1839
  in her altered position as a self-governing and self-organized Church, cannot long be expected to allow so important a department of her organization as her Divinity School to remain under the control of a Body over which she has no authority. This, at least, I will say—that if she should consent to such an anomalous state of things as a permanent arrangement, she would follow a course not adopted, so far as I know, by any other Voluntary Church in Christendom.
  But the real gravity and urgency of the case will not appear until we notice the changes which have meantime taken place in the University.
  Let me first point to the Body in the University from which hitherto the Divinity Teachers of the Church have been chosen. That Body consists of the Fellows and ex-Fellows of Trinity College. In times past, these were all clergymen; but, owing to recent changes, and more especially to those involved in the University Tests Act, no Fellow is now required to take Orders. And, as a result, not one Fellow has entered the Ministry of the Church during the last 14 years. Even already the small circle within which a choice of teachers was confined has been thus materially narrowed. What may it not be by-and-by?
  But this is not all. Let me call your attention to the Body with whom the choice of teachers rests. That Body is the Board or Governing Body of Trinity College, and consists of the Provost and seven Senior Fellows. From the same causes to which I have just referred, it has come about that no member of that Board need now be a clergyman; no member need belong to the Irish Church; no member is even required to profess a belief in God. Now, I do not stand here to condemn the policy whereby the constitution of the University has been thus altered. I long ago came to the conclusion that the interests of religion would not, in the end, suffer, but the contrary, by opening up the privileges and the government of the University to all, whatever their faith might be. But I do stand here to ask your Lordships—and I ask it of you as men of good sense and good feeling—whether the Church of Ireland can be expected for very long to allow the choice of her Divinity Teachers to rest with a Body whose constitution may so soon utterly
  1840
  unfit it for the discharge of so sacred a trust.
  And now, if no remedy such as that which is proposed in the Bill now before the House be found for this state of things, what must be the result? I answer, with deep sorrow, that I see nothing for it but that, at all risks, the Church should decline to accept, as the permanent training school of her future Ministry, a Divinity School constituted after the anomalous manner just described. In other words, in the absence of some such alternative as that proposed in this Bill, I see nothing for it but that our Church should proceed to organize a separate Divinity School of her own, and under her own control.
  The separation from the old University, which such a course would involve, I, for my part, would regard with unspeakable regret. For, quite apart from the attachment which I naturally feel for the University where I myself received my early training, and where I spent so many happy years, I see plainly the disastrous effects which such a separation would produce on the best interests of the Church to which I belong. For my own part, I consider it essential to the complete education, in the highest sense of the term, of those who are preparing for the Ministry of our Church, that they should carry on their studies in the healthy atmosphere of a place of learning, where truth in every shape is eagerly and fearlessly pursued, and general culture dearly prized. It is, I hold, all-important to the usefulness of those who will have to minister among their fellow-men that they should, during their course of training, mix with those who are studying for other Professions, and that they should thus learn, not only to read books, but also to read men. It is, I am convinced, most desirable for the benefit of the Clergy, and the laity too, that by a mutual interchange of thought and of social kindliness during their University career, some safeguard should be provided against that estrangement which so often unfortunately separates us, as it were, into different camps, and which it is, I fear, too often the tendency of a purely Theological College to promote. And yet, unless some way be found, as in the Bill now before your Lordships, for extricating the Church of Ireland from the difficulty in which she now

  1841
  finds herself, I see no course open to her but to face even so disastrous a necessity as that of founding a separate Theological Seminary for the training of her own Clergy.
  And now I have, I think, shown the grave nature of the difficulty in which our Church has been placed by the legislation which has been recently adopted by the State, and in which the University has concurred. I need scarcely dwell at any length on the responsibility which, as a necessary consequence, now rests upon the State and the University to come to the help of the Church in this the hour of her distress and danger.
  As regards the State, I will only say that her duty in this matter does not rest merely on abstract principles. It is clearly pointed out by recent precedent. When legislation made it necessary that the Divinity School of Maynooth should be reduced to somewhat similar straits, the justice of meeting its claims, by a policy of liberal compensation, was admitted with scarcely a moment's hesitation. Nor is this all. Mr. Gladstone, when advocating this policy, then and there gave a distinct pledge that, whenever the Divinity School of the Irish Church should be placed at a similar disadvantage—and he evidently contemplated such a contingency—it should be dealt with on similarly liberal terms.
  Those who supported Mr. Gladstone at that time are, I would hope, now prepared to abide by this pledge; and those who then differed from his general policy will be the last, I take for granted, to oppose the fulfilment of this portion at least of his scheme.
  It only remains for me to ask how can the State and the University most justly, most wisely, and most promptly give the Church their help at the present crisis? Before showing how it can be thus given through this Bill, let me first notice briefly one or two proposed ways of so doing which do not seem to me sufficiently just, or wise, or prompt, to command your Lordships' approval.
  I have heard it said by some that the true policy of the Irish Church is to wait until some proposition is made to Parliament for the endowment of a Catholic University. We may, it is said, then reasonably expect some help for our Divinity School, as an equivalent for the concession made to others. I desire to avoid any controversy on a
  1842
  "burning question," and will, therefore, express no opinion as to the expediency of any such possible concession to another Church. But in the interest of some settlement of our own claims, more tangible and immediate than that just proposed, I would only say that the demand which we now make on behalf of our Divinity School finds its equivalent, not in the possible endowment of a Catholic University in the future, but in the actual compensation given to a Catholic Divinity School in the past. And I think it is an honest principle that old debts should be paid before new accounts are run up.
  But, apart from any question as to the endowment of a Catholic University, it has been urged by others that the compensation for which we seek should be looked for from the Church surplus, rather than from the Advowson money of the University. I am free to admit—and here I venture to differ from the noble Earl—that, if no more feasible or prompt method of receiving this compensation could be suggested, I, for one, should consider the Irish Church not only entitled, but bound to claim some grant for her Divinity School from the Church surplus. But an immediate opportunity presents itself now in the friendly offer which has been made to our Church by the authorities of Trinity College, and which this Bill proposes to carry into law; and I would appeal to your Lordships whether our Church would not be sadly lacking in common sense, and in duty too, if she were to let go this present opportunity, and to wander off in search of some possible gain in the future, which, after a weary pursuit, she might find in the end to be altogether beyond her reach? But, again, it has been suggested that things might remain very much as they are—that the funds and government of the Divinity School might still rest with the Board of Trinity College—but that for the better management of the School the Board should associate with itself some of the Bishops of the Irish Church, and otherwise, it may be, modify the method of electing teachers for that School. This seems plausible, and I desire to express my respect for the motives which have prompted such a suggestion. But I see two fatal objections.
  In the first place, would such an arrangement fulfil the intention with which

  1843
  the provisional clause—reserving the solution of the Divinity School problem for a future time—was inserted in the University Tests Act? It was surely never intended that the ultimate solution of that question should be inconsistent with all the principles of the Act which it is intended to supplement. And could a Divinity School for the purpose of denominational teaching, and under the control and payment of the University, be maintained in accordance with these principles? I think not. I feel, therefore, that no such arrangement could hope to be permanent. And, if so, I do not think that our Church could wisely lean her hopes against what might soon prove to be a tottering wall.
  But there is a second, and an equally insuperable, difficulty. Such an arrangement is one to which the Governing Body of the Church of Ireland would not, in my opinion, ever consent. I go further, and make bold to say frankly that to such a scheme as a permanent arrangement that Body ought not to agree. Is it reasonable to expect that any Voluntary Church could thus permanently hand over the appointment and supervision of her teachers to any body over which she has not entire control? When the Irish Church was a State Church she had advantages—which I would be the last to undervalue—in return for which she could well submit to certain restrictions upon her liberty. But she has lost these advantages, and has received in exchange her present independence. And for my part, I do not think that she can now afford to relinquish that independence, or, what is more important, to abandon the responsibilities which that independence involves.
  It has, I know, been assumed that if the Governing Body of the Church should have the control of the Divinity School it would become marked by a one-sided and narrow character. For my own part, the experience of the past tells me that it would not. At every step in the past proceedings of our Church the party of moderation has gained the day. The Right and Left Centres have combined, and the extremes on either side have had to give way. It would, I believe, be the same with our Divinity School. Possibly, it would remain in its character very much what it is now; but the teachers in it would
  1844
  have the additional advantage of having been chosen by the Church within which they taught, and all the additional influence which would result from such a choice.
  And this leads to the question—How does the Bill before the House propose to solve the present difficulty? The answer is a simple one. It proposes that the University should transfer the endowments and the control of its Divinity School—subject, of course, to the rights of its present teachers—to the Church of Ireland. It also proposes that University lecture-rooms should continue to be used freely by that School; but, in return, it stipulates that the Students of the University should receive instruction free in the Church Theological Schools.
  You will observe that, while this Bill does not hereby run counter to the principles of the University Tests Act—for it offers the same local accommodation to the schools of other denominations—it provides for the localization, as hitherto, of the Divinity School, within the precints of the College, and thus insures the maintenance of that union between the two Bodies which it is so important to preserve.
  But as regards the University this Bill does more. It confers upon it a positive financial benefit. For many a Divinity Student, whose means might not permit him to pay fees both to the Church and to the University, will be enabled by the offer of a free theological education to pursue, at the same time, his course of arts in the University, to the consequent gain of that Body. When I remind you that, as my noble Friend has said, this view of the benefit derivable to the University from the Bill is the view of one who, of all others, may be expected to have the interests of the University at heart, and the soundness and clearness of whose judgment is admitted by all—I refer to Dr. Lloyd, the Provost of Trinity College—your Lordships will attach to my remarks a weight which they might not otherwise possess.
  Let me add, that the provisions of this Bill will not interfere with the Faculty, or rather the power, which the University possesses of granting Degrees in Theology. There has been, I think, some misapprehension on this point. A Faculty such as that which we find in

  1845
  Continental Universities, involving a Corporate Body, does not exist in the case of Dublin University. The Divinity School is certainly not a Faculty of this nature. It does not grant Degrees, nor is it in any way connected with the granting of Degrees. Attendance at the Lectures of the Divinity School is not any condition of obtaining a Degree in Divinity. The applicant for a Theological Degree in Dublin University has to pass an examination by the Regius Professor, for the purpose of testing his acquirements in theological knowledge, quite apart from his religious views or the doctrines of the Church to which he belongs. This power of granting degrees to candidates, of any denomination, whose qualifications will pass the test of an examination, would remain as it was before, even though the Divinity School should be transferred to the control of the Irish Church. And a special clause is contained in the present Bill to insure the preservation of such a Faculty.
  I have only to remind your Lordships that the principles of this Bill have met with the approval of the Governing Body of the Church of Ireland, of the Governing Body of Trinity College, and of the two Representatives whom the University sends to Parliament for the special purpose of guarding its interests. It lastly embodies the recommendations of a Commission appointed by Her Majesty, with the special object of considering the question which is now at stake. Under all these circumstances, I think I am justified in confidently recommending this Bill to the favourable consideration of your Lordships' House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR*: My Lords, this subject has been brought before the House by my noble Friend (the Earl of Belmore) in a speech of very great comprehensiveness, and my noble Friend has been followed by my noble and right reverend Friend in a speech worthy alike of his name and the distingnished position which he holds in the Irish Church. In addressing a few words to the House on this subject, I desire to speak not merely as a Member of Her Majesty's Government, but also because I have the honour to fill the place of Chancellor of the University which has been referred to. The proposal which the Bill contains has been made in pursuance of the recommenda-
  1846
  tions of a Royal Commission which was appointed to inquire into the subject, and I cannot refer to that Report without offering my tribute of admiration for the manner in which that Commission discharged its functions. The subject was one of considerable difficulty, and the Report is remarkable for the clear and succinct way in which the subject has been dealt with. With respect to the particular proposal embodied in the Bill before the House—a proposal which was only one of those contained in the Report—I can readily understand the desire which the Irish Church must entertain that it should receive the sanction of Parliament. The reasons which actuate the Irish Church, as I understand them, are three in number. In the first place, the Irish Church has now become a voluntary and self-governing body, and it is natural that, in pursuance of the practice in other voluntary self-governing Churches, it should desire to have largely, if not altogether, under its own control, the management of the institution which is to be the training school for those who are about to take Holy Orders. The second reason which has been adverted to is a very remarkable one. The Divinity School of the University of Dublin is at present under the control of the Governing Body of the University, which is composed of the Provost and Senior Fellows. According to the constitution of that Body at present, the Church, would, no doubt, say that the government of the School is satisfactory. But under the effect of recent legislation it might, in the course of time, come to pass that the members of the Governing Body might cease to be members of the Church; and if this should happen—as I hope it may not—it certainly cannot be expected that the Church would continue to repose confidence in the control and management of the Divinity School. The third reason is of the same kind. The area of choice from which the Professors and Lecturers of the Dublin School are at present selected comprises the Fellows and ex-Fellows of the University. That area has hitherto, no doubt, been sufficiently large for the purpose of securing an efficient choice. But here, again, the result of recent legislation has been remarkable. During the last 14 or 15 years no Fellow of the College has, I am

  1847
  told, taken Holy Orders; and if this state of things continues, the area of choice will become so much narrower that the persons chosen as Lecturers and Professors in the Divinity School may be such as the Church would not desire to see in that position. I am, therefore, not at all surprised that the Church of Ireland, influenced by these reasons, should be extremely anxious that an arrangement such as that to be found in the Bill—supported as it is by the Report of the Commissioners—should be carried into law.
  Your Lordships must, however, bear in mind, on the other hand, how this question may be looked at from a University point of view.
  As I understand it, this proposal involves, in the first place, a transfer from the University to the Church of an annual sum of nearly £3,000. No doubt, that sum is at present expended by the University in keeping up the Divinity School; and it may be said that, if that School be kept up for the future by the Church, the University will be no loser by handing over the money. But, at the same time, it is an important question whether the University is ready to consent to the transfer of so much of its property? Again, the proposal involves the suppression in the University of great Theological Professorships—of the Regius Professorship, and other important Professorships and Lectureships. It is not impossible that such might be the best solution of the difficulty, and one to which the University will be ready to agree; but it is an important point, and one which would have to be gravely considered. Again, as Theology is at present one of the Faculties of Dublin University, it has the duty imposed on it, both of teaching and conferring degrees in that Faculty. There is no other Faculty in the University, except perhaps Music, in which the University does not both teach and confer degrees. The effect of this proposal would be to put an end to the possibility of the teaching of Theology by the University, and it is open to considerable doubt how far any satisfactory arrangement could be made for conferring degrees in a Faculty in which the University should have ceased to teach.
  Such are the views, with respect to this proposal, which seem to me of im-
  1848
  portance, both as regards the Church and the University.
  I was very glad to hear from my noble Friend who introduced the subject that an interval—and I hope a substantial interval—will be allowed to elapse before the Bill comes on for a second reading. The measure is one which can hardly be expected to secure the support of Parliament, unless it shall appear to be promoted by the unanimous action of the two Bodies concerned. From what has been said, I expect that the proposal will have the approval of the Irish Church; but it is a proposal which ought to be submitted to the Synod that will meet soon after Easter. In the same way, the opinion of the University ought to be obtained; and by the University I mean not merely the Governing Body, consisting of the Provost and the Senior Fellows—though in their wisdom, moderation, and experience, I have thorough confidence—but in the larger Bodies of the Council and the Senate. There is no person whose opinion ought to carry more weight on an occasion such as the present than that of the Provost—and I would say the same of all the members of the distinguished Board over which he presides; but, after all, they are only the Governing Body, and it is not for them to decide with regard to important structural alterations in the University itself. What Parliament will desire to see is a free expression of opinion from the Corporate Body of the University, and to know what the Council and the Senate, and the Body at large think upon so important a subject. I hope my noble Friend will take care that there shall be ample opportunity for obtaining such an expression of opinion; and if it shall appear that the measure has the full assent of the Church and the University, it will then be for Parliament to consider whether it cannot also accord its sanction to the scheme.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 36.)

  TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make further provision in respect of Tenant Right in Ireland at the expiration of leases—Was presented by The Earl of BELMORE; read 1a. (No. 35.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.