. 
 
 
 
 ■; 
 
REPORT 
 
 v 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AT A SPECIAL MEETING 
 
 OF 
 
 The Senate of the University of 
 Dublin, 
 
 On Tuesday, the 25TH February, 1873, and three following days, 
 
 TO CONSIDER 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE’S 
 UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BILL (IRELAND.) 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 
 HODGES, FOSTER, AND CO., GRAFTON STREET, 
 
 PUBLISHERS TO THE UNIVERSITY. 
 
 1878. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/reportofproceediOOtrin 
 
1Y 
 
 y\S>AVb 
 3>%5'f 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 FIRST DAY<— Tuesday, 25th February, 1873. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ice-Chancellor’s Speech ... ... ... ... 1 
 
 snior Proctor (Dr. Hart) moved the adoption of following 
 Petition:— ... ... ... ... ... b 
 
 To the Honorable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain and Ireland in Parliament Assembled. 
 
 THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, DOCTORS, 
 
 AND MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TRINITY COLLEGE, 
 DUBLIN. 
 
 Humbly Sheweth 
 
 That the proposal to replace the two existing Universities in 
 Ireland by a single central University, which would thus possess 
 a monopoly of granting Degrees, is opposed to the principle of 
 competition, and would, if carried into effect, lower the standard 
 of Academic attainment. 
 
 That we are confirmed ir this view by the results of such a 
 system in France, where the effects of its operation are deplored 
 by all learned and thoughtful men ; while on the other hand the 
 beneficial effects of an honourable rivalry are acknowledged by all 
 candid members of the two existing Irish Universities. 
 
 That the standard of attainment necessary for an Academical 
 Degree would be further lowered by the affiliation of small pro¬ 
 vincial Schools or Colleges, inasmuch as the standard must 
 necessarily be accommodated to that of the weakest of the affi¬ 
 liated Institutions. 
 
 That the withdrawal of the government of the University from 
 men who have gained their position b v giving proof of their attain¬ 
 ments, and whose lives have been spent in the work of teaching, 
 for the purpose of transferring it to a Council, who will most pro¬ 
 bably be nominated to represent particular views in Politics or 
 Religion, would be injurious to the interests of Education, and 
 productive of internal strife. 
 
 For the foregoing, amongst other reasons, we humbly pray that 
 your Honorable House will not pass, in its present form, a Bill, 
 which deprives your petitioners of their ancient University privi¬ 
 leges and powers, and which your petitioners believe would prove 
 fatal to the cause of higher Education in Ireland. 
 
 Dr. Reichel seconded ... ... ... ... 6 
 
 Dr. Haughton moved the adjournment of the Senate ... 13 
 
 2 
 
 59241 
 
VI 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 SECOND DAY —Wednesday, 2Gth February. 
 
 Dr. Carson—Explanatory Statement with reference to 
 
 Dr. Reich el’s Speech ... ... ... ... 14 
 
 Dr. Haughton moved the following Amendment on the 
 Petition:— ... ... .. ... ... 14 
 
 “That we fully admit that the Roman Catholics *of Ireland 
 have a just cause of complaint, in the present condition of Univer¬ 
 sity education in this country, and that the grounds of com¬ 
 plaint will not be removed by the Government proposal, which 
 provides no endowment for denominational colleges, while it 
 lowers the standard of University education throughout the entire 
 country, to the permanent injury of all classes of Irishmen.” 
 
 Dr. Shaw seconded the Amendment 
 Dr. Traill 
 Mr. Stoney 
 Rev. Dr. King-Irwin 
 Mr. Butt, M.P. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Jellett moved the u previous question 
 Dr. Webb 
 Dr. Tarleton 
 Rev. Mr. Galbraith 
 Mr. Wilson 
 Rev. Dr. Salmon 
 Dr. Evory Kennedy ... 
 
 Rev. Lord Plunket ,, 
 
 Vote taken; Amendment lost. Placets, 12; Non 
 
 Placets, 42 
 
 21 
 
 23 
 
 26 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 35 
 39 
 42 
 45 
 
 48 
 
 49 
 
 51 
 
 52 
 55 
 
 THIRD DAY— Thursday, 27th February. 
 
 Dr. Traill proposed the following Amendment:— .. 55 
 
 “ That, for the foregoing, among other reasons, we humbly pray 
 that your honourable House will not pass into law a Bill, which 
 deprives your petitioners of their ancient University privileges and 
 powers, and which your petitioners believe would prove fatal to 
 the cause of higher education in Ireland; and your petitioners 
 further pray that your honourable House will adopt the principle 
 of Mr. Fawcett’s Dublin University Bill, which was read a second 
 time last session, and which is now before your honourable 
 House.” 
 
 Mr. Monck seconded the Amendment 
 Rev. Mr. Jellett ... 
 
 Mr. Kirkpatrick 
 
 59 
 
 62 
 
 64 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 vii 
 
 Mr. Wilson ... ... ... ... ... 68 
 
 Eev. Dr. Eeichel ... .. ... ... ... 69 
 
 Mr. Dowden ... ... ... ... ... 71 
 
 Iiev. Mr. Poole ... ... ... ... ... 72 
 
 Mr. Stoney moved the insertion of clauses ... ... 74 
 
 Eev. Dr. Plaughton proposed an Amendment ... ... 76 
 
 Eev. Mr. Gray seconded ,, ... ... 77 
 
 Eev. Lord Plunket ... ... ... ... 77 
 
 Amendment put and carried ... .. ... 78 
 
 That the Petition, as amended, be adopted ; put and carried 
 on a division. Placets, 45; Non-placets, 6 ... ... 78 
 
 FOUETH DAY —Friday, 28th February. 
 
 Dr. Traill proposed the following resolution:— ... ... 79 
 
 ‘‘That, m the opinion of the Senate, it is desirable that the 
 House of Commons should adopt the principles of the ‘ Dublin 
 University Bill ’ introduced by Mr. Fawcett, which would prevent 
 this ancient University being deprived of its privileges and powers, 
 while abolishing all religious tests in Trinity College. ” 
 
 Eev. Dr. Stubbs seconded ... .. ... ... 79 
 
 Mr. Monck proposed an Amendment:— ... 79 
 
 “ That the Senate desires to express its concurrence in the 
 leading objects of Mr. Fawcett’s Dublin University Bill, namely, 
 the abrogation of religious tests imposed on the Provost, Fellows, 
 and Scholars of Trinity College, and the reconstruction of the 
 governing body of the same, with a view to placing upon it at an 
 early period Catholic and Dissenting representatives, whose quali¬ 
 
 fications have been adequately tested.” 
 
 Mr. Tyrrell seconded the amendment... ... ... 79 
 
 Eev. Mr. Galbraith ... ... ... ... ... 7-9 
 
 Eev. Mr. Jellett ... ... ... ... ... 80 
 
 Eev. Mr. Mahaffy ... ... ... ... ... 81 
 
 Dr. Shaw ... ... ... ... ... 81 
 
 Eev. Mr. Poole ... ... ... ... ... 82 
 
 Amendment put and lost ... ... ... ... 83 
 
 Original Eesolution put and carried ... ... ... 83 
 
 Mr. Stoney moved his Eesolutions ... ... ... 83 
 
 Eev. Mr. Mahaffy seconded ... ... ..84 
 
 Dr. Traill moved the “ previous question ” carried ... 85 
 
 Mr. Stoney withdrew his Eesolutions ... ... ... 86 
 
 Senate dissolved ... ... ... ... ... 86 
 
 Appendix ... ... ... ... ... 87 
 
PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY, 1873. 
 
 A special meeting of the Senate of the University of 
 Dublin, was held on Tuesday, February] 25th, at three 
 o’clock, for the purpose of considering the Irish University 
 Bill introduced into Parliament by Mr. Gladstone, and 
 adopting a petition against some of its provisions. The 
 Bight Hon. Sir J. Napier, Bart., Vice-Chancellor of the 
 University, presided. 
 
 The Vice-Chancellor said he had convened this meet¬ 
 ing, at the request of the Provost and Senior Fellows, for a 
 special and limited purpose, namely—to consider the clauses 
 of the bill that had been recently brought into Parliament 
 for University education in Ireland, which directly touched 
 upon this University and affected its academic operations. 
 But before proceeding to the more special business, he felt it 
 to be his duty, as Vice-Chancellor, to make a preliminary com¬ 
 munication, which he had reduced to writing, and it was 
 as follows:—In the speech that was recently made by Mr. 
 Gladstone in the House of Commons, on the introduction of 
 the University Education Bill, there are some statements which 
 I think it to be my duty, upon this occasion, as Vice-Chancellor 
 of our University, to notice and correct. If I have under¬ 
 stood him aright, his object was to show that, although our 
 University originated in a true ideal, it had lapsed into 
 a condition which he described as in “ everything almost 
 exactly the opposite of that which, according to admitted 
 rules, it ought to be.” “ It does not,” (he says), “ as some 
 suppose, date from the reign of Elizabeth.” This, doubt¬ 
 less, has been said before; but it may suffice to refer to the 
 answer given by one whom Mr. Gladstone says he looks 
 upon “ as the highest of all authorities who have dealt with 
 
2 
 
 the curious history of the University of Dublin—namely, the 
 very learned Dr. Todd, so long and honourably connected 
 with the Dublin University.” In the Irish Ecclesiastical 
 Journal for October, 1844, Dr. Todd published the answer 
 to which I have alluded. It was reprinted in a pamphlet, 
 a copy of which I got from himself. After an exhaustive 
 examination of the public documents that refer to the sub¬ 
 ject, he concludes thus :—“ It is unnecessary to pursue any 
 further the history of these transactions, since it must be 
 now sufficiently obvious that the whole story of an endowed 
 University—or any University at all, endowed or not en¬ 
 dowed—which was confiscated and destroyed at the suppres¬ 
 sion of the monasteries is an absolute fiction.” Afterwards, 
 he adds—“ Queen Elizabeth, therefore, is the real and only 
 founder of the University of Dublin.” 
 
 I entirely concur with Mr. Gladstone that, under the 
 Charter of Queen Elizabeth, the College and the University 
 were intended to be distinct bodies. The College was in 
 terms described as Mater Unicersitatis. Not because other 
 colleges were then expected to be, from time to time, within 
 its precincts, but as Dr. Todd has deliberately repeated and 
 proved, the true import of the description is, that the College 
 was designed and expected to bring forth its own graduates, 
 juxta tempus idoneum. Its Doctors and Masters were to con¬ 
 stitute a body, the head of which was to be the Chancellor, for 
 whose perpetual appointment, as well as that of other Univer¬ 
 sity officers, the Charter made ample provision, and thereby 
 perpetuated the power of conferring Degrees on such students 
 as from time to time should be qualified to obtain them. In 
 its nature it was essentially a corporation, aptly designated by 
 “ Universitatis,” as Cowell and Aylifie, the great civilians 
 of Cambridge and Oxford, have explained the force and 
 legal impo: t of that word. But, although the College and the 
 University were distinct, they were not the less intended to be 
 intimately connected parts of the one great institution that 
 was designed (as stated in the Charter) to provide a complete 
 course of instruction and education for the students; and 
 further, to enable such as should be duly instructed and 
 educated, to obtain academic Degrees in all the Arts and 
 Faculties. There was the twofold purpose of education and 
 graduation ; and this was to be fulfilled by the College and 
 the University. Dr. Todd veil observes, that in order to 
 apprehend the full force of this phrase {Mater Universitatis ), 
 it is to be remembered that the College, at its foundation in 
 1592, was necessarily a body so small in point of numbers 
 
3 
 
 that it was difficult to recognise in it two distinct bodies (the 
 College and the University), which, at that time, must have 
 consisted of the same individuals. The Charter, therefore, 
 is to be understood (he says) as authorizing and requiring 
 the heads of the College to create and organize a University 
 out of the alumni , so soon as they should become sufficiently 
 numerous to enable such organization to be introduced. 
 Accordingly, after the expiration of seven years from the 
 date of the foundation—“ juxta tempus idoneum ”—the first 
 commencements of the University were held on Shrove 
 Tuesday, a.d. 1600. In the words of the late Lord Chan¬ 
 cellor Blackburne, in December, 1858, when he was Vice- 
 Chancellor of the University:— <£ It was to be kept in mind 
 that the Legislature and the Crown from the earliest period 
 down to the time of the last Charter (21st Vic.) had recog¬ 
 nized and treated the University as a body corporate; but 
 what was directly to the purpose, was that the Charter of 
 the Queen recognises and perpetuates all the functions and 
 duties of the University, and its means of exercising them 
 in their full integrity.” 
 
 I do not think that I need here particularly notice the 
 legal opinions to which Mr. Gladstone has referred. What¬ 
 ever may be their effect when fully examined, they were 
 but the private opinions of counsel. The Vice-Chancellor 
 had the opportunity of carefully considering them before he 
 publicly communicated his own authoritative opinion to the 
 Senate. It was latest in time, and none could be higher in 
 authority. When I succeeded to him in the office of Vice- 
 Chancellor, I was induced to investigate the whole subject 
 with all the help I could command, and all the care and dili¬ 
 gence I could bestow. To me it was a labour of love. The 
 conclusions at which I arrived, and the grounds of them, are 
 fully stated in the paper which I communicated to the Senate 
 early in 1871, and which is referred to with kind approval in 
 the University Calendar * I have alluded to what seems to 
 me to have been the reasonable and natural connection be¬ 
 tween the College, as designed to train and teach the under¬ 
 graduates, and the University, as afterwards to confer the 
 Degrees ; and, as a Degree is a solemn testimonial that the 
 graduate has accomplished a regular course of study, and 
 approved his competence by suitable tests, the duty was 
 from the first, confided to the Governing Body of the Col¬ 
 lege to prescribe the curriculum of education; to appoint 
 
 See Appendix. 
 
4 
 
 the teaching staff of tutors, lecturers, and professors, together 
 with proctors and other responsible officers, with a view to 
 secure the fitness of such as should be presented to obtain 
 Degrees. With the like object, it was provided that the 
 approval of the Governing Body of the College should be 
 signified by their private grace before the public grace of 
 the Senate should be asked and its sanction given to the 
 conferring of the Degree. No one has explained the pro¬ 
 priety of these precautions more clearly or more satisfac¬ 
 torily than Dr. Todd. They have tended generally to make 
 the Degrees conferred in the Senate by the corporate head of 
 the University to be not only appreciated by the graduates, 
 but respected by the public; and this has kept up a high 
 standard of education in the College, and an honourable 
 spirit of emulation amongst the students. I must frankly 
 confess* therefore, that it was with much surprise that I 
 read the passage in Mr. Gladstone’s speech, in which he 
 speaks of the College and University, “ as one of the most 
 
 ! astounding academic constitutions which it could ever have 
 entered into the head of man to devise.” I must not, how¬ 
 ever, omit that he also frankly avows “that, through a 
 liberal and enlightened administration, it has been made to 
 produce great benefit to the country.” Is it not, then, enti¬ 
 tled to be judged by its fruits? His description of the Uni¬ 
 versity, as in durance vile, in a state of absolute servitude, 
 a bondage from which he professes his anxiety to be our 
 deliverer, is expressed in sensational words; but I am bound 
 to say that, to one who has become practically acquainted 
 with the real state of things, it is rather a caricature to 
 excite a laugh (in which it succeeded) than a correct descrip¬ 
 tion to form the basis of legislation. When it is translated 
 into plain prose, and divested of what is unreal, it amounts 
 to this—that in this institution the concurrence of the Board 
 of the College and the Senate of the University is required 
 to give full effect to any rule, by-law, or grace; and that 
 before the Senate is asked to approve or reject, the proposal 
 must first pass the private ordeal of the Board. It is like 
 the finding of a bill of indictment by a grand jury before there 
 is a trial in open Court. The precautions relative to the con¬ 
 ferring of Degrees, which have been shown by Dr. Todd to 
 be reasonable and proper, are the principal fetters of the 
 pictorial bondage described in the speech to which I refer. 
 
 i But Mr. Gladstone further says:—“One of the great 
 functions of the Chancellor is to convoke the Senate of the 
 University; but at Dublin he cannot do this except upon 
 
 
5 
 
 the requisition of the Provost and Senior Fellows. And 
 when the Senate is convoked* the Provost and the Seven 
 Fellows, or the Provost alone, have the power at any mo¬ 
 ment, by absolute veto, to stop any of its proceedings. 
 Now, that is the position of the University of Dublin in 
 reference to Trinity College.” On this I speak without 
 distrust, as, in the absence of the Chancellor, I have to dis¬ 
 charge the duties of the office. I hold that I have authority to 
 convene the Senate, whenever I think fit; but that I am bound 
 to convene it at any time on the request of the Provost and 
 Senior Fellows. I further hold that, neither the Provost 
 and Senior Fellows have, nor has the Provost alone, power 
 at any moment by absolute veto to stop any of its proceed¬ 
 ings, save that as a member of the Caput of the Senate, the 
 Provost has the power of forbidding a petition for a Degree 
 to be submitted to the Senate. The Senior Master, non. 
 regent (who is elected by the Senate) and the Vice-Chan¬ 
 cellor, as the other members of the Caput, have each the 
 like power. The power of convening specially is seldom 
 required to be exercised, because we have fixed days for 
 conferring Degrees, and a day for other business. The last 
 special occasion was, I think, for the election of the Chan¬ 
 cellor, when Lord Cairns was chosen by the Senate. The 
 duty of the Vice-Chancellor, in the absence of the Chan¬ 
 cellor, is to act as Visitor of the College; to preside over 
 University assemblies, to deliver the medals and the certifi¬ 
 cates of merit, awarded by the College, and to confer the 
 Degrees of the University—a ceremonial that is happily 
 associated with the traditions and the prestige of the Uni¬ 
 versity ; with much that is calculated to elevate and impress 
 the candid, generous, and cultivated minds of ingenuous 
 youth. Nor are its influences transient. The late Sir Thomas 
 Wyse—a distinguished Irishman, thus spoke in 1844—“ I 
 was educated in that University myself. I find its recol¬ 
 lections, in many instances, twine round my heart, with the 
 dearest remembrances of my earliest years. I have never 
 forgotten the friendships of its Fellows and of its students; 
 nor can there ever be obliterated from my recollections, the 
 stimulus of honourable ambition that existed, and the feeling 
 of generous rivalry that was inspired between student and 
 student; and I feel bound further to state, a Roman Catholic 
 myself, that I never had to complain of any interference 
 from the institution with respect to my religious opinions.” 
 This graceful, genial, truly Catholic tribute to our Alma 
 Mater prompts me to say—“ Destroy it not for a blessing is 
 
6 
 
 in it.” If, indeed, the reforms that have been proposed and 
 generally accepted amongst us as to the College were carried 
 out, together with those which might be easily made in the 
 University, by an expansion of its professorial system, 
 so as to preserve its character as a teaching body, especially 
 for the higher degrees, and for giving occasional instruction 
 by lectures available to the public at large, I cannot help 
 thinking that it might be brought to what Sir William 
 Hamilton, of Edinburgh (one of the greatest authorities on 
 the subject,) has described as <ff the condition of an absolutely 
 perfect University”—in which “the tutorial system is in 
 subordination to a professorial.” Mr. Gladstone, in his ad¬ 
 mirable and instructive address to the University of Edin¬ 
 burgh when he was chosen to be Rector, has shown that a 
 University is emphatically an institution of Christianity, and 
 that it aims at universal culture. But if it is to be trans¬ 
 formed here into a central Board, representing contentious 
 sects rather than peaceful science, with nominees of the 
 Castle, instead of chief men chosen from the College; Divi¬ 
 nity, Ethics, Mental Philosophy, and Modern History ex¬ 
 cluded or discouraged —monstrum cui lumen ademptum —then 
 I will affirm that this is not the ideal of the great Elizabeth, 
 and I trust it never will be that of her most gracious Majesty 
 Queen Victoria. 
 
 Dr. Hart, in proposing the adoption of the petition, which 
 he had the honour of laying before the Senate, would only 
 say that it was not the object of its authors to oppose any 
 useful reform that might be brought under their notice 
 (hear), but simply to protest against the three leading prin¬ 
 ciples of the bill now before Parliament—first, the one for 
 destroying all competition by amalgamating the two existing 
 Universities into one; secondly, the restriction, by a system 
 of promiscuous affiliation of colleges; and thirdly, against 
 the constitution of a new council, which was, in fact, a poli¬ 
 tical constitution instead of one, as at present, resting solely 
 on knowledge and educational requirements (hear, hear). 
 They did not at all oppose any useful reforms; but these 
 three principles they thought it their duty to lay before 
 the Senate, as being highly objectionable (hear). He moved 
 the adoption of the petition. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Reichel said, in the first place, he had to express the 
 extreme diffidence with which he addressed that great and 
 learned assembly, and to apologise for the choice of the Board 
 having fallen on him to second the adoption of the petition. He 
 had been selected probably because he happened to be the only 
 
7 
 
 person there not officially connected with, either of the two 
 Universities in Ireland, and yet a member of both, and having 
 had large experience of the working of both. He believed that 
 the subject brought before them in the petition was one on 
 which they could agree (hear), but lest anything should fall 
 from him in the course of his observations calculated to offend, 
 he would apologise beforehand, and ask them to attribute it 
 to his inscitia loquendi. The first thing in the petition laid 
 before them, to which he would allude, was its extreme 
 moderation of tone—he had almost said its tameness of tone 
 (hear). No more moderate petition could possibly have 
 been conceived and expressed in words respecting a bill which 
 actually revolutionized or was intended to revolutionize, the 
 whole of the higher education of a great University such as 
 that (hear). He thought there was not one word in the peti¬ 
 tion with which any one could cavil on the score of its being 
 strong or excessive. But there were some points omitted 
 which, he supposed, had been omitted by the authors of the 
 petition on the ground of their being purely collegiate. 
 The interests of the College and the interests of the Uni¬ 
 versity, however, were so intwined and intertwisted in this 
 case that it was practically impossible to separate them; 
 nothing which injured the College could, as the framers of 
 the bill seemed to conceive, benefit the University (hear). 
 That was the principle which at the very outset ot their 
 deliberations, he was of opinion they should clearly lay 
 down—that nothing injurious to the College could possibly 
 be beneficial to the University. 
 
 The strength of Mr. Gladstone’s position was the appa¬ 
 rent analogy which he had been careful to draw between 
 what he wished to effect in this country and what had been 
 effected in the great English Universities of Oxford and 
 Cambridge since they w r ere reformed, after the .Royal Com¬ 
 mission sat on them. Now that strength was more apparent 
 than real, because the analogy was more apparent than real. 
 For instance, on the one subject which the Vice-Chancellor 
 discussed—the intention that Trinity College should be Mater 
 Universitatis —he would say one word. The Vice-Chancellor, 
 with Dr. Todd, thought that meant that the College was to 
 develop into a University inseparable from the College. He 
 (Dr. Reichel) humbly differed from Dr. Todd and the Vice- 
 Chancellor on the subject, because he conceived that several 
 Royal Letters, issued in the reigns of James I. and Charles 
 II., and Acts of Parliament, too, a little before the Union, 
 directly contemplated the affiliation to the University of 
 
8 
 
 Dublin of other colleges, so that it seemed to him that the 
 term Mater Universitatis was not intended to mean that the 
 College should simply possess University powers and func¬ 
 tions, but that, from time to time, other colleges springing up 
 on the spot, from private or Government munificence, be affi¬ 
 liated. But that analogy broke down as soon as they applied it 
 to the actual state of the case. Mr. Gladstone proposed to 
 carry it out in that great University by affiliating colleges at a 
 distance. Now, every one knew that if the two great English 
 Universities embraced each a number of these colleges, they 
 were all on the same spot (hear). Nothing more distinct— 
 nothing more different—nothing more entirely at variance— 
 could be conceived than the system of the English Univer¬ 
 sities, to which Mr. Gladstone now triumphantly appealed, 
 and the scheme in favour of which he quoted them. The 
 analogy broke down at every point. What an absurdity 
 there was in distant affiliated colleges with a professoriate 
 (as he understood the bill) resident and lecturing in Dublin ! 
 What benefit could the distant colleges derive from a profes¬ 
 soriate located in Dublin ? (Applause). WTat would be the 
 effect of such a thing ? Simply this: that as the distant 
 colleges would not be subject to the teaching of the distant 
 professoriate, the teaching of the distant professoriate would 
 be perfectly valueless for the purpose of instructing the 
 students of the distant colleges, nor therefore on the standard 
 of the University degrees; because, just as the chain’s weakest 
 link was the measure of the strength of the whole, so the 
 weakest of the affiliated colleges was the measure of the 
 height to w T hich they could bring the accomplishments 
 denoted by the degree of the University (hear, hear). If 
 the affiliated colleges were at a distance from the halls where 
 the professors lectured, there might as well be, so far as the 
 affiliated colleges were concerned, no professors at all. In 
 that case, the analogy drawn by Mr. Gladstone, broke down 
 completely. 
 
 He must refer to another case, in which the analogy also 
 broke down completely. Unfortunately, it was the case 
 in the British House of Commons that members of Parlia¬ 
 ment who had been at Oxford or Cambridge knew nothing 
 of Dublin, and he feared he must also say that members 
 of Parliament who had been educated at the University 
 of Dublin, knew as little about Oxford and Cambridge. 
 Appealing to that ignorance, Mr. Gladstone called on 
 Trinity College to make a certain amount of sacrifice for the 
 benefit of the University, and stated that the colleges at 
 
9 
 
 Cambridge and Oxford had not disdained to make similar 
 sacrifices for their Universities. Now what were the sacrifices 
 made at Oxford and Cambridge ? At Oxford, before the 
 Royal Commission sat, and before the changes in the Univer¬ 
 sity were effected, there were in the twenty-four colleges and 
 halls not less than five hundred and sixty fellowships. The 
 greater part of these were entire and absolute sinecures, and 
 utterly unconnected with any tutorial duties whatever, and 
 might be held and were in fact, held by persons not living 
 on the spot; by barristers training themselves in London, or 
 by curates in holy orders in various parts of England. 
 Of those sinecure fellowships the sacrifice was made. Of 
 these sinecure fellowships the colleges willingly sacrificed 
 one hundred and twenty out of five hundred and sixty 
 for the larger endowment, or for the entirely new endow¬ 
 ments of various professorships. That was what was 
 done at Oxford ; with the exact number of the sacrifices 
 made at Cambridge he was not acquainted. Similar sacri¬ 
 fices were made there, although not on so large a scale. 
 Now these were sinecure fellowships; their suffering involved 
 no suffering to the colleges, or to any vested interests 
 in the colleges. As the fellowships became vacant they 
 were suppressed, and no college interest suffered, while 
 the University interest was greatly strengthened by the 
 change. Mr. Gladstone could not call on them to suppress 
 a number of sinecure fellowships here, for here there were 
 no sinecure fellowships. (Applause). There was not a single 
 junior fellowship that was not connected with a tutorship, 
 There was no such thing in Ireland as Dublin Fellows re¬ 
 siding here and there, perhaps in the Temple, London, or 
 Lincoln’s Inns. He repeated that all Junior Fellows here 
 were here for work. (Applause). With regard to the Senior 
 Fellows, they had the government of the University, and 
 their positions answered very much to that of the heads 
 of houses at Oxford and Cambridge; but the sacrifices 
 the Senior Fellows had been making during the past year 
 ought to put them in a different position altogether from 
 mere beneficiaries. They were considered by the ignorant 
 public as men enjoying large incomes for which they did 
 nothing. For a few years past the Senior Fellows of 
 Trinity had been sacrificing £600 a-year of their income—• 
 and this they had done uncompelled—of their own free will. 
 Honour to whom honour was due. (Applause). This was the 
 College, and this was the system to which Mr. Gladstone 
 paralleled those of Oxford and Cambridge, and on the ground, 
 
10 
 
 that because Oxford sacrificed one hundred and twenty 
 sinecures Trinity should be called on to sacrifice £12,000 
 a-year—not by suppression of Fellowships, because the work 
 must be done, unless the number of students diminished. Mr. 
 Gladstone in his bill did indeed, evidently contemplate that 
 event, which might take place, and probably would, if the bill 
 Avere carried out in its full provisions, viz.—a greatly reduced 
 number of students in Trinity College, and thereby, of course, 
 a diminished amount of fees received. The Junior Fellows 
 were entirely dependent for their income—for their actual 
 existence—on these fees, for the statutable income of a 
 Junior Fellow Avas only £40 a-year Irish. Did that look 
 like a bill for the advancement of learning, which in one 
 of its clauses contained very careful provisions for the 
 diminution of the fees which was then expected and 
 calculated upon? (Applause.) Might it not rather be de¬ 
 scribed as a bill for the degradation and possible extinction 
 of Trinity College, than as a bill for the advancement of 
 learning in Ireland P (Hear, hear). 
 
 As to the question of monopoly, he entirely concurred in 
 Avhat was said in the petition, though perhaps twenty-five or 
 twenty-six years ago, many of the present members of the 
 Senate Avould not have used the language of the petition. 
 There was violent opposition made at one time to the esta¬ 
 blishment of the Queen’s Colleges, but what had experience 
 taught them? The experience of that very University had 
 taught them, that the deprivation of the monopoly which it 
 once had of teaching in Ireland had been the greatest blessing 
 to it (applause). Within the last twenty-five years, since the 
 opening of the Queen’s Colleges, numerous beneficial changes 
 had been carried out, with which the members of the Senate 
 Avere Avell acquainted. Numbers of Professorships had been 
 founded, and others rescued from the degradation in which 
 they were by being attached as sinecures—small, petty sine¬ 
 cures_to the more valuables offices, and their emoluments 
 
 had thus been made ancillary to the advancement of learn¬ 
 ing. And all this, after having been proved by the experience 
 of the last quarter of a century, was suddenly to disappear, 
 and monopoly was to take its place, and a great University, 
 consisting, in fact, of nothing but a council—an ordinary 
 council of twenty-eight members—Avas to take the place of 
 the two Universities which now divided Ireland between 
 them. 
 
 Let them look at the constitution of this proposed Univer¬ 
 sity. What was this Council of twenty-eight members likely 
 
11 
 
 to be ? On what principle were its members to be selected ? 
 He did not quarrel with the Prime Minister for still 
 keeping the names suppressed—that was only what might be 
 anticipated, because the mention of the names would only 
 multiply the points of attack in the case of the second 
 reading of the bill. He could not, therefore, say that Mr. 
 Gladstone had acted in this respect without reason. Were 
 the twenty-eight names to be selected on the principle of 
 gratifying contending sects ? If they were, they all knew 
 what would be the result (applause). Or were they to be 
 representatives of the highest learning? Might it not be 
 difficult to find twenty-eight such representatives, willing to 
 act in the supreme capacity in which the bill put them with 
 regard to the professoriate ? Would men, representing the 
 highest learning, be ambitious of that position which made 
 them the despots of the professoriate, which put the profes¬ 
 soriate at their feet, and enabled them to reprimand and degrade 
 professors on the complaint of some “aggrieved” student, who 
 believed that in something the professor had quoted or said, 
 there was an intended insuit to his religion (applause) ? Was 
 this the caput mortuum of despotism to which they were 
 tending? Was all the experience of the last twenty-five 
 .years to go for nothing, in order that a body might be created 
 absolutely irresponsible—for it was remarkable there was 
 no provision whatever for dismissing a member of this 
 Council, no matter how much he might have misbehaved? 
 They were absolute autocrats, for, when once on the 
 Council, they could not be removed. Was that a Council 
 calculated to advance the higher learning in Ireland (ap¬ 
 plause)? As to the number of the Council, why was twenty- 
 eight selected ? When that number was swelled by the 
 number elected by the affiliated colleges, they should have a 
 board of such monstrous proportions that all sense of indivi¬ 
 dual responsibility would disappear (hear), and it would 
 become a fertile nest of jobbery and corruption. They would 
 find the quorum of this large body put down at five, so that 
 five men would do all the work, and yet have no responsi¬ 
 bility ; at least, each of the quorum would have only the 
 twenty-eighth part of the responsibility. The method of 
 subsequent appointment, partially by the Crown and partially 
 by the co-option of the Senate, was also most mischievous. 
 It seemed intended to provide that the Council should never 
 get out of the leading-strings of the Government. The 
 Council was never to be free—it was always to be the repre¬ 
 sentative of the Government, and of the Government only 
 hear, hear). 
 
12 
 
 Another point regarded the affiliation of colleges and the 
 election of members from affiliated colleges to the Council. 
 How was it that a college which was able to matriculate fifty- 
 students should send up one, and that a college able to matri¬ 
 culate one hundred and fifty students should send up two, 
 and that there it should stop; so that this great college, with 
 its one thousand, or one thousand two hundred matriculated 
 students, should only send up two ? In that provision a 
 direct bonus was given to the multiplying of small insig¬ 
 nificant colleges throughout the country (hear, hear), which 
 should have no mean share in the government of that great 
 University, although utterly unworthy of forming any con¬ 
 stituent part of it (hear, hear). What was to be said of the 
 professorial body ? Could they imagine that men with real 
 greatness of mind—men gifted with self-respect—would like 
 to be in the hands of a body like this Council, which would 
 have absolute power to dismiss them, without appeal, when¬ 
 ever it chose ? And how could they estimate precisely the 
 meaning of the words <£ wilful offence,” which the Bill pro¬ 
 posed as sufficient to justify the Council in doing so ? Every¬ 
 body could tell how power so given might, and probably 
 would, be abused in this unhappy country. 
 
 Was it necessary to say to this great assemblage that such 
 a measure as this could not possibly be final ? As was stated 
 in a letter he had read the other day in an English newspaper, 
 signed “ An English Liberal,” if that body which calls itself 
 the Catholic University became affiliated to the University of 
 Dublin in its changed form, and did not succeed in drawing 
 to itself a large number of pupils (and he, for his own part, 
 entirely disbelieved in its success), that want of success 
 would not be set down to its intrinsic incompetency, or to its 
 not having a right to be considered as a learned body, but 
 merely to its want of an endowment, and that would only give 
 the signal a few years hence for a further confiscation of the 
 revenues of Trinity College (hear, hear). In fact, Trinity 
 College was to be punished because it had done its work too 
 well, and others were to be set up at its expense in the vain 
 hope that they would do the work as well, or better. He 
 was quite sure that he need say no word to the office-holders 
 of the College, to implore them not to take a narrow-minded 
 view with regard to this bill. Their private interests were 
 carefully provided for in the bill; but he hoped no con¬ 
 sideration of private interest would induce them in any respect 
 to acquiesce in the details of the measure as it now stood, and 
 thus to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage (applause). 
 
13 
 
 There were a few subordinate points in the bill on which 
 he should like to say a few words. In the first instance, 
 standing in that place he could not but raise his voice in 
 defence of that institution in the west of Ireland which was 
 now menaced with extinction. (Hear, hear). He thought 
 they ought all to feel that the extinction of a college which 
 had done good, like that of Galway, would be a national, 
 and not merely a provincial, calamity. (Hear, hear). That 
 it would be a provincial calamity he had no doubt from what 
 he had observed in the west of Ireland; and he believed that 
 the extinction of that College would be welcome to none 
 except a few members of a hierarchy that he would rather 
 not more nearly specify. There was one point in the bill 
 which they ought all to pay some attention to. It might be 
 called a sentimental grievance, but they had the great autho¬ 
 rity of the Prime Minister for the fact that sentimental 
 grievances were often more felt than real grievances. He 
 referred to the application of the title “ scholar ” to every 
 matriculated student of the new University. In the English 
 Universities, in that of Dublin, and in other Universities, the 
 title scholar was one of honour and distinction, applied solely 
 to those who had passed an examination of more or less 
 difficulty, and thereby obtained a right to a certain amount 
 of maintenance, as an honour given to them for the acquire¬ 
 ments they had shown in the examination; but, in this bill, 
 “ scholar ” and ef student ” were stated to be synonymous 
 terms, and “ scholar ” was the word almost invariably used 
 throughout the bill for denoting “ student.” Why was 
 that? Was it for the purpose of pulling down the dignity 
 of scholarship of that ancient University? (Hear, hear). 
 And what did they want with the Scotch term “ bursary” ? 
 Why not leave it in the home to which it belonged? It 
 was a term unknown in England, unknown in Ireland, and 
 he suspected that it was imported from Scotland simply to 
 please his friend, Dr. Lyon Playfair. What did they want 
 with such terms as that? (Hear, hear). They preferred 
 stare super mas antiquas et super nomina anliqua . (Applause). 
 
 [Upon the motion of Dr. Haughton the meeting was 
 adjourned until the following day at 12 o’clock.] 
 
14 
 
 SECOND DAY—WEDNESDAY, 26 th FEBRUARY. 
 
 The Senate of the University of Dublin resumed its sitting 
 on Wednesday, at 12 o’clock. The Vice-Chancellor of the 
 University presided, as on the previous day. 
 
 Before the resumption of the debate, 
 
 Rev. Dr. Carson , F.T.C., said there was a point on which 
 he wished to make a remark, to correct an observation 
 which fell from his friend, Dr. Reichel, yesterday, with 
 reference to a large surrender of income by the Senior 
 Fellows, which took place about fifteen years ago. Dr. 
 Reichel stated that at £600 a-year. That sum was too 
 large; and as it was of importance that the exact facts 
 should be known, his friend, Dr. Hart, and himself had 
 gone through the figures, and they found that in the year 
 1859 the surrender of income that was made by each Senior 
 Fellow, mainly for the purpose of founding University 
 Studentships, and promoting the advantage of the College 
 in other ways, was £362 a-year on the average. 
 
 The Vice-Chancellor said he had had a communi¬ 
 cation suggesting that it would be desirable, before they got 
 into their special business, to state what course was open 
 to any member of the Senate, in reference to moving amend¬ 
 ments on the petition. The strict form and old usage was 
 this, that after a grace had come from the Board, the province 
 of the Senate was either to accept or reject the petition. 
 But as this was a very special occasion, his own disposition 
 would be, not to take a technical view of the procedure, 
 but trusting to the sound discretion of the members of the 
 Senate, to leave them an opportunity of expressing them¬ 
 selves freely. With respect to any amendments that might 
 be suggested, it was extremely desirable that unanimity 
 should prevail, if possible. He thought they were all 
 greatly pleased with the fair, temperate, and earnest spirit 
 that had prevailed amongst them on the previous day, and 
 which he hoped would continue to the end. He wmuld not, 
 therefore, be disposed to hold men tight—he would rather 
 trust to their own good sense, (hear), hoping, however, that 
 they would be able, by setting to work in a business-like 
 way, to conclude their deliberations, and discharge him at 
 or before four o’clock that day. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haughton resumed the debate on this serious 
 
15 
 
 question, which was a question of life and death to the 
 University of Dublin, whatever it might be to Trinity 
 College ; and in the outset he would remark that, in his 
 opinion, it was altogether from the University point of view 
 that they were bound to consider that great question. He 
 was extremely glad that no limitation was put upon the 
 freedom with which the Senate was permitted to discuss the 
 subject. They were vitally interested in that question, be¬ 
 cause the bill of the Government, whatever it did with 
 Trinity College, proposed their total abolition ; and if any 
 party was entitled to be heard in remonstrance, the Senate 
 of the University of Dublin was so entitled. He concurred 
 with every word contained in the admirable petition drawn 
 up for their acceptance by the Board of Trinity College 
 (hear). Every word of it he endorsed, and he joined with 
 Dr. Reichel in praising the skill with which it was drawn up, 
 and the terms with which it was expressed ; but he had to 
 express his own regret, and, he believed, the regret of others 
 in that Senate, that Dr. Reichel in his able speech—in every 
 part of which, where he touched upon academical matters, 
 he (Dr. Haughton) entirely concurred—failed in one or two 
 instances to imitate the moderation which he praised. When 
 he heard the phrase drop from Dr. Reichel’s lips of the 
 “so-called Catholic University” of Ireland, in whose success 
 he (Dr. Reichel) disbelieved, and when he heard further the 
 ominous utterance alluding to the “ hierarchy of a certain 
 Church, which he would not further characterize,” he (Dr. 
 Haughton) felt the deepest regret that—in a moment of un¬ 
 guardedness, he was sure—such phrases had dropped from 
 the lips of the gentleman selected to second the proposal of 
 the Board. He thought indeed, for a moment, that he was 
 not sitting in the halls of Trinity College, but that he was 
 listening to a debate in the Senate of another University, 
 and like Dr. Primrose, in the Vicar of Wakefield, it struck 
 him he had heard the phrase —“ The so-called Catholic Uni¬ 
 versity”—before. If he recollected aright, the distinguished 
 gentleman who used that phrase in another place, long after¬ 
 wards regretted that he had used that phrase, and he (Pro¬ 
 fessor Haughton) had again to express his regret that the 
 phrase had been used at all in their debate. What did that 
 phrase mean ? It meant a covert sneer at that body which 
 called itself the Catholic University of Ireland. It was no 
 part of his business to defend that body; but he happened 
 to have a minute personal acquaintance with the work of one 
 branch of that body— its medical faculty—and he should be 
 
16 
 
 unworthy of the place which he held there, and unworthy of 
 being called a friend of the distinguished medical men in this 
 city, who worked the medical faculty of the so-called Catholic 
 University of Ireland, if he did not stand up here and say 
 that he did not agree with Dr. Reichel, and that, so far from 
 disbelieving in the success of the medical faculty of the 
 Catholic University of Ireland, he knew from the best of all 
 reasons—personal knowledge—that it had been a great suc¬ 
 cess. The medical faculty of the so-called Catholic Univer¬ 
 sity of Ireland possessed amongst its students men as anxious 
 to learn, and possessed amongst its teachers men as competent 
 to teach, and as diligent in teaching, as any students or 
 teachers in the medical faculty of Trinity College, or, he 
 would add, for Dr. Reichel’s information, in any medical 
 faculty of the Queen’s Colleges. They had peculiar facilities 
 for that success—peculiar facilities arising from the manage¬ 
 ment of their hospitals, and, taking everything into consider¬ 
 ation, how they had been handicapped in the race from want 
 of endowment they had done as much as, and more than, could 
 have been expected from them. Let any medical man ac¬ 
 quainted with the subject visit the hospitals where the 
 students of the so-called Catholic University are taught, and 
 let him compare for a moment the unpaid and unbought ser¬ 
 vices of the Sisters of Mercy and Charity that attend to the 
 patients with the paid hirelings of the other (our) hospitals, 
 and see if the Catholic students had not over their Protestant 
 fellow-students in hospital work very great advantages. He 
 was proud to number in his list of friends the distinguished 
 men who taught medicine and science in the medical faculty 
 of the Catholic University of Ireland. 
 
 They were now in this University entering upon a contest 
 for their very existence, and, as angry words might possibly 
 arise to the lips of some speakers, he would venture to sug¬ 
 gest that the angry words should be suppressed, and not 
 allowed to pass the barrier of their lips. It was the custom 
 of sailors on board a man-of-war, before the fight began, to 
 collect all the cats and pitch them overboard. Now, he 
 would recommend every person in that Senate to imitate the 
 example of the sailors, and throw overboard all their sharp 
 words and ill-tempered epithets, and conduct the discussion 
 without sneering allusions to other bodies with whom they 
 had no concern (hear, hear). He would say another word 
 before leaving the subject—he would remind the Senate of 
 the excellent French proverb which told them that he laughed 
 best who laughed last. For his own part, he would like, 
 
17 
 
 before he laughed, to see the joke fairly played out. What 
 would the end of this joke be ? It might be no joke to some 
 of the parties concerned in it. The so-called (i Catholic 
 University of Ireland” occupied at the present moment the 
 position of Cinderella amongst her sister colleges. Would 
 any man present tell him, when the fairy prince arrived on 
 the scene, and the wand of the arch-magician Gladstone was 
 waved over the place, whether Cinderella’s foot might not 
 be found to fit the flexures and sinuosities of the Gladstonian 
 slipper (laughter, and hear, hear). Therefore, they ought to 
 postpone their laughter and postpone their sneer till the 
 game was played out. Now, to come to a much more serious 
 matter. He entirely and heartily concurred in every word of 
 the petition drawn up by the Board, but he thought it erred 
 by defect. There was, in his mind, an omission of one of the 
 weightiest reasons that they were able to allege why this 
 ancient University should not be destroyed, and in asking to 
 have maintained for themselves the right to confer their 
 degrees without sending their candidates to an outside body 
 to be examined. This amendment, which, if adopted, would 
 become the fifth clause of the petition, was as follows:— 
 c * That we fully admit that the Roman Catholics of Ireland 
 have a just cause of complaint, in the present condition of 
 University education in this country, and that the grounds 
 of complaint will not be removed by the Government pro¬ 
 posal, which provides no endowment for denominational col¬ 
 leges, while it lowers the standard of University education 
 throughout the entire country, to the permanent injury of 
 all classes of Irishmen.” His first proposition was, that the 
 Senate of the University of Dublin should come forward, 
 frankly and fairly, to say what he knew many members of it 
 individually felt—that the Roman Catholics of Ireland have 
 a just cause of complaint, in the present condition of Univer¬ 
 sity education in Ireland. If they had no just cause of com¬ 
 plaint there would be no Government proposal before the 
 country. They could not imagine that if the Roman Catho¬ 
 lics had no just ground of grievance, on the question of Uni¬ 
 versity education, they would have obtained the position 
 they now hold, in engaging the attention of the entire Par¬ 
 liament in examining their grievances. He thought it was 
 incumbent on them, as the Senate of the University of 
 Dublin, which was essentially a Protestant University, to 
 admit that this Protestant University should come forward 
 and offer the right hand of fellowship to their Roman 
 Catholic fellow-countrymen, who were suffering under a 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 grievance from which they, Protestants, were happily 
 exempt. 
 
 His next proposition was, that the grounds of the complaint 
 would not be removed by the Government proposal. It was 
 impossible to refer to the Government proposal from this 
 point of view without also referring to the counter-proposal 
 of Mr. Fawcett. But he must state in the strongest terms 
 he could, his humble opinion that Mr. Fawcett’s proposal was 
 open to the same objections as the Government proposal; 
 that it did not provide for the removal of the just causes of 
 complaint which the educated Homan Catholics of this 
 country had. Whether the Protestants of Ireland liked it 
 or not; whether the English and Welsh and Scotch liked it 
 or not, the Roman Catholics of this country, or at least a 
 large number of them, would not consider their grievances 
 on the ground of University education removed by any 
 system that did not provide them with a collegiate instruc¬ 
 tion, in which education in religion and morals went hand in 
 hand with education in arts and letters. They might be 
 right, or they might be wrong in that—he would not trouble 
 the Senate with his own opinion on that subject, as it was 
 not worth having ; he had a strong opinion on it—but that 
 was the attitude the Roman Catholics had taken in this 
 question, both clergy and laity, as far as could be gathered 
 from all the public documents they had access to ; for he was 
 well aware that it was said in holes and corners by persons whis¬ 
 pering, that “ Roman Catholics do not think what you think 
 they do ; their private opinions are quite different from their 
 public ones.” But they were not permitted to act upon such 
 statements as that; they must look to the public declarations 
 of the Roman Catholics, and their public declarations were 
 to the effect that he had stated. They demanded collegiate 
 education, in which they might be allowed to teach to stu¬ 
 dents of their own faith, religion, arts, and letters, hand in 
 hand. The Government proposal provided no endowment 
 for denominational colleges, and he entirely agreed with 
 the words Dr. Reichel had used—that the most fatal objec¬ 
 tion to the bill was that no rational being could consider it to 
 be final. It could not be final. It was the beginning of 
 trouble and agitation. Suppose the bill had established the 
 endowed colleges of Trinity and the Queen’s Colleges side 
 by side with the unendowed colleges of Londonderry and 
 the Catholic University, and other affiliated colleges, there 
 would gradually grow up a demand that they should not be 
 handicapped in the race by the endowments of Trinity 
 
19 
 
 College, but that they should all start on an equal footing; 
 and, therefore, an agitation, which would grow in strength 
 from year to year, would grow up for the endowment of 
 those unendowed colleges of the denominational type, 
 whether Roman Catholic or Presbyterian. The effect of the 
 agitation must be, in his humble judgment, to succeed in the 
 long run. But that success would, then, have been preceded 
 by the destruction of the University of Dublin and the 
 Queen’s University in Ireland ; and the loss to education 
 would then be irreparable. They could not possibly avoid, 
 in the long run, the endowment of denominational colleges 
 by adopting the Government proposal, and if they adopted 
 the Government proposal, in the hope of avoiding 
 the endowment of denominational colleges, they would 
 destroy the standard of education in the country. On this 
 point, he would say very little, as Dr. Reichel had placed 
 before the Senate so fully and so clearly the degradation to 
 arts and letters that must ensue from this newly-constituted 
 University. He entirely concurred with all that Dr. Reichel 
 had said as to the composition of the Council, consisting of 
 twenty-eight men of culture outside the academic teachers. 
 He would ask any person in that hall could he write down 
 the names of twenty-eight men, excluding judges, post¬ 
 masters, inspectors of constabulary, and officials, to sit upon 
 that Council (laughter, and hear, hear). 
 
 There were to his mind three functions of a University. 
 The history of all the ancient Universities in the world 
 showed that those three functions were ranked in olden 
 times at very different values. The first and highest 
 function of a University was to promote original research. 
 The early Universities were collections of men of limited 
 means, who clubbed their scanty funds together, each cul¬ 
 tivating the branch of science or art, or literature, for 
 which he was fitted. Original research was the first and 
 primary object of those ancient Universities. Gradually 
 there grew up the idea that those clusters of highly ac¬ 
 complished and educated men should be utilized for the 
 purpose of teaching. Students collected round those cen¬ 
 tres of original research, and teaching became the second 
 function of the University. At a later stage the function 
 of examining was added to these. Of all three functions, 
 in the middle or latter end of this enlightened nineteenth cen¬ 
 tury they were now to select the lowest, meanest, and hum¬ 
 blest—namely, that of examination, as the future function 
 of the University of Dublin. He entirely concurred with 
 
20 
 
 Dr. Reichel, that original research would cease to exist, 
 not only in this college, but in every college affiliated with 
 the new University. He agreed with him in saying that the 
 University professors would be professors only in name. 
 While students attended their lectures the sword of Damocles 
 would hang over them; every word would be watched 
 that slipped from their mouths lest they should offend some 
 unsuspected prejudice, till the teaching function of the 
 University of Dublin would cease to exist, and the Univer¬ 
 sity of Dublin w T ould at length become an examining 
 board, appointed by Government officials, and not discharge 
 higher functions than those now discharged by half a 
 dozen clerks of the Civil Service Commission at West¬ 
 minster Bridge. 
 
 For nearly three hundred years, in this ancient Univer¬ 
 sity, there had been a triple union of religion, letters, and 
 arts. The results of that natural union were recorded in 
 the history of this College, and he need only point to 
 the portraits of those great men which looked down upon 
 this meeting to-day, to remind the Senate of what the 
 natural union intended by Almighty God Himself between 
 religion, arts, and letters, was capable of producing. As 
 soon as the present office-holders of this College died out, 
 no matter what efforts and exertions might be made, there 
 would be no inducements in this College to cultivate the 
 higher branches of religion, letters, and arts; and he greatly 
 feared Mr. Gladstone’s bill would become law notwithstand¬ 
 ing all the efforts of the Senate against it, for it was not 
 to be passed or rejected by force of argument for or against 
 it; it was to be passed because it suited the exigencies 
 of the two great English parties in politics to get rid of 
 an awkward question (hear, hear)—to get it out of their 
 way. The Tories and the Radicals were now like two 
 gamesters shuffling their cards to get rid of this question, 
 in order that they might have a chance of a trump turning 
 up to one or other of them. If this bill of the Government 
 became law, as he greatly regretted to say he believed it 
 would, every man in Ireland who valued the culture of arts 
 and sciences, should put on his best mourning, and put crape 
 on his hat, and prepare to attend the funeral of religion, let¬ 
 ters, and arts ; for when divorced they w T ould all cease to 
 exist. (Applause). 
 
 Dr. Reichel said he was not going to say a word in answer 
 to Dr. Haughton’s speech, with much of which he entirely 
 agreed ; but he washed merely to explain a matter personal 
 
21 
 
 to himself. Dr. Haughton had been rather angry with him 
 for using the phrase, “ so-called Catholic University of Ire¬ 
 land.” If he had used it, it was because the title “ Catholic 
 University” was a misnomer, so long as it had not obtained 
 a charter; for a University without a charter was an absur¬ 
 dity. He had not used the phrase by way of any sneer at 
 that body which was generally called the Catholic Univer¬ 
 sity of Ireland. Of its merits, in a medical point of view, of 
 which Dr. Haughton was most competent to speak, he knew 
 nothing; but he did not think any great University could 
 found its reputation on the success of a single faculty, and 
 that, one which had never before been considered as suf¬ 
 ficient to complete a University. 
 
 Dr. Shaiv , E.T.C., seconded the proposition with great 
 pleasure. Fie entirely concurred with the petition as far as 
 it went, and he also concurred in the statement of the pro¬ 
 posed addition, thinking it important that their reasons for 
 asking to be allowed to retain their University powers should 
 be clearly laid before Mr. Gladstone and Parliament (hear, 
 hear). This movement of Mr. Gladstone was a retrograde 
 one—it was contrary to the whole strain and pressure of the 
 times, and it was specially contrary to the Prime Minister’s 
 own previous career. Every gentleman knew well that the 
 privilege of granting degrees was, a hundred years ago, quite 
 in keeping with the whole system of society. Everybody then 
 was a member of a guild or corporation, and nobody could 
 practise any art or trade unless he got authority from one of 
 these. At that time it was only natural and right that the 
 power of conferring degrees should also be a privilege, and, 
 accordingly, at that time, important civil privileges were 
 attached to the holding of degrees. As time rolled on, 
 however, those guilds and corporations were broken up, and 
 the privileges attaching to degrees gradually dwindled down, 
 till now they were scarcely worth retaining. No person 
 had taken a larger part in that movement than Mr. Gladstone 
 himself, following in the footsteps of Sir Robert Peel, Mr. 
 Cobden, and Adam Smith. The progress of the age pointed 
 to larger competition, and the business of a free trade 
 Government was to be liberal in granting the degree—con¬ 
 ferring power to any Body which made out a prima facie 
 case for it. But, instead of doing that, Mr.' Gladstone 
 wanted to reduce the number of degree-giving bodies, 
 and make the monopoly closer. Some four or five years 
 ago Mr. Gladstone let fall a remark, which struck him 
 (Dr. Shaw) that, now-a-days, everybody without exception 
 
22 
 
 was a Free Trader, but nobody was a Free Trader without 
 exception. Mr. Gladstone’s exception was the matter of 
 University education. He desired to deprive them of their 
 degree-giving power, when he ought to grant power to the 
 Catholic University. He was imitating the state of things 
 that existed in the time of William III., when it was thought 
 that the woollen trade should be concentrated in England, 
 with several other important branches of Irish manufacture, 
 because such was desirable for State reasons or private inte¬ 
 rests. Their woollen trade, and other branches of industry, 
 had been transferred hence, and could not now be restored; 
 but there was one branch of manufacture still remaining to 
 them—that of learning—the power of freely educating and 
 freely giving degrees to those who might choose to come 
 into their colleges. These (their degrees) were now only 
 trade-marks. If their character was good, their trade-mark 
 would be valued, but it would be just as unfair to deprive them 
 of their trade-mark, as to withdraw from the Cork merchants 
 their firkin stamp, or from the Scotch fishers their peculiar 
 mark, at present protected by Government. Let them rather 
 take a philosophical view of the ideal state of things—to let 
 every Body grant degrees, and then, by a principle of natural 
 selection, the best would flourish (hear, hear). In such a 
 state of things he, for one, would not be afraid of his own 
 University. Mr. Gladstone was greatly in dread of three 
 Universities in Dublin—he (Dr. Shaw) would not be afraid 
 of three dozen ; but he was afraid of the scandalous waste of 
 public money in multiplying teaching bodies. Already they 
 had two or three very good teaching bodies, and some of these 
 were not paying their own expenses—for example, one in 
 St. Stephen’s-green; he did not now refer to the Catholic 
 University, but to the Royal College of Science—and 
 notwithstanding that difficulty, Mr. Gladstone was about to 
 establish another entirely superfluous teaching body, which 
 nobody would be obliged to attend, and which, he ventured 
 to say, very few would attend. What he would recommend 
 was, that they should ask to be let alone themselves, and 
 at the same time should state that they would not only be 
 content to see the Catholic University get a charter, but 
 would be glad to see it attain fame, and attended by a long 
 roll of distinguished scholars, and that there was no jealousy 
 between them and that University. If the question was 
 left to the decision of an Irish parliament, sitting on the 
 other side of the street, no objection would be started to 
 doing what he suggested. He felt assured that even the 
 
23 
 
 Protestant members of such an assembly would raise no 
 obstacle, but would rather be foremost in granting a charter 
 to the Catholic University. The present bill might pass, 
 but the question would still remain undetermined, and it 
 would be so till settled in accordance with the dictates of 
 enlightened public opinion in Ireland. For that reason he 
 was in favour of completing the memorial by setting forth 
 that they thought their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen 
 were under a disadvantage in not having endowments; that 
 they would be glad that Mr. Gladstone, in settling this 
 question, should take their case into consideration; and that 
 in the opinion of the Senate he had not done so by his bill, 
 which—whatever his intention—would have the effect of 
 lowering the tone of education in this country, and doing 
 for Ireland, in respect of learning and culture, what his 
 predecessors did for her, in respect to the woollen and other 
 manufactures. 
 
 Dr. Traill , F.T.C., said he felt considerable difficulty on 
 coming forward, as he did, to propose another solution of the 
 question. He quite/agreed, as Dr. Haughton and Dr. Shaw 
 had said, with almost every word in the petition, and that, of 
 course, enhanced his difficulty. But what he should like to 
 see added was quite different from the solution proposed by 
 Dr. Haughton, and it was to this effect:—That the Senate 
 should adopt the scheme already proposed by Mr. Fawcett, 
 which was at present before the House of Commons, and 
 which had been petitioned for by almost all the Fellows of 
 Trinity College (hear, hear). He quite agreed with the 
 two previous speakers, as to the necessity that had arisen 
 for bringing forward some solution of the difficulty. It was 
 quite clear that it was too late for them now to say simply 
 that they protested against the bill, because they might 
 properly be met with the reply, c< You have been protesting 
 all along. You petitioned against Mr. Fawcett’s bill when 
 it stood a chance of being passed, and you petitioned for it 
 when there was no probability of its being accepted ” (hear, 
 hear). And he was equally aware that in adopting the course 
 he suggested, he might be charged with inconsistency. But, 
 before showing that he was not so inconsistent in that as 
 would at first sight appear, he would remind them that they 
 were in this dilemma, if they adopted the petition they would 
 be simply saying they protested against the Government 
 proposition without offering any solution; and, on the other 
 hand, if they rejected the petition, they would be in an 
 equally false position, and far more likely to be misunder- 
 
24 
 
 stood, because it might then be said they were in favour of 
 the bill (hear, hear). If he was put to a choice between the 
 bill of the Government and the proposal of Dr. Haughton, 
 he would accept the latter; but he thought it was open to 
 them to consider, as another alternative, Mr. Fawcett’s pro¬ 
 position. Those who had previously opposed that measure, 
 could not be justly charged with inconsistency, in having 
 afterwards advocated it, when they remembered that a very 
 important event happened between the two occasions, viz.: 
 the passing of the Irish Church Act. The position they 
 occupied before that event was totally untenable now, and 
 without going into the question as to the advisability of the 
 act—for, in his opinion, it was a principle of conservatism, 
 at all events of patriotic conservatism, to accept what had 
 been laid down as the law of the land—he would endeavour 
 to show wherein the difference lay- 
 
 The Vice-Chancellor —Might I ask if you are speak¬ 
 ing for or against Dr. Haughton’s amendment ? 
 
 Dr. Traill —I am opposing it. I am stating why I will 
 suggest another solution ; but, as I take it, I cannot formally 
 move my amendment till Dr. Haughton’s has been voted on. 
 
 The Vice-Chancellor —Certainly. You may now state 
 what you propose in the event of Dr. Haughton’s suggested 
 amendment being rejected, and the reasons upon which you 
 will ground your proposition. 
 
 Dr. Traill said that was what he was endeavouring to do, 
 and his suggestion would be that the Senate should consider 
 as alternative measures the Government bill and Mr. Faw¬ 
 cett’s. He was observing that after the passing of the Irish 
 Church Act, their previous position became untenable, be¬ 
 cause they could not maintain any longer that the government 
 of that place should be limited to clergymen of the Dis¬ 
 established Church. If that Act were undone—if he were 
 put in the same position as formerly, with regard to their 
 Protestant Constitution, he would repeat what he had done; 
 but that was now a thing of the past, though in having 
 defended a Protestant Constitution in the University, he 
 was not to be understood as having advocated it in any 
 bigoted or sectarian sense, but on that broad basis of Protes¬ 
 tantism, which would secure freedom of speech and of 
 thought to all, which would admit of no index expurgatorius 
 being applied to modern history or mental and moral philo¬ 
 sophy, and which would allow every man to worship God as 
 he thought fit, or not to worship Him at all, if he preferred 
 it (applause). Dr. Haughton had taken exception to any 
 
25 
 
 hostile criticism of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this 
 matter, but they must separate the question of the Roman 
 Catholic laity of the co ntry from that of the hierarchy; 
 for, he thought it was the great difficulty of this question, 
 that there existed in this country a hierarchy who arrogated 
 to themselves the right to speak for the iaity, whether they 
 liked it or not. He must say that the hierarchy did not 
 represent the sympathies of the country, and he would rather 
 that they did not derive their power, and take their orders 
 from a foreign country. He did not see how gentlemen, who 
 advocated independence for Ireland in legislative matters, 
 should also advocate a hierarchy, which drew its inspiration 
 from a country on the other side of the Alps (laughter and 
 hear, hear). But those in power now said, with regard to 
 the solution proposed by Mr. Fawcett, that it is quite behind 
 the times—that it would have suited the exigencies of party 
 at a former day, but that it would not do so now. This 
 hierarchy, say they, to whom they have already given so 
 much, are pressing them to give them more; and, on the 
 other hand, they further say the English and Scotch Liberals, 
 on whom depend their place and power, wont allow them 
 to give that hierarchy what they want; and so they say to 
 Trinity College, “ You must be the scape-goat to bear the 
 sins of your countrymen, and, if it should happen that higher 
 education is carried off with you into the wilderne.-s, it is 
 only you and your fellow-countrymen that will suffer.’’ 
 (Applause.) The only question that remained was as to a 
 charter and endowment for a Roman Catholic University. 
 He thought the real difficulty in that question was not 
 whether it would satisfy certain parties, but whether it was 
 possible, in the present day, with what was taking place in 
 all continental countries before them, namely, the fight be¬ 
 tween Ultramontanism and the representatives of the people, 
 that they could shut their eyes to the fact that that fight was 
 also coming on in an extreme degree in this country also. 
 He was ready to admit that if he was allowed freely to settle 
 this question with any independent section of the Roman 
 Catholic laity, who could answer for the mass of their fellow- 
 countrymen, and who would refuse to be dictated to by their 
 priests, bishops, and cardinals, as the Protestants did—be¬ 
 cause the Protestants did not listen to dictation from their 
 bishops or clergy in the question of secular education—he 
 would be ready to meet them on even terms, and give 
 them the charter they wished for, and endow a University of 
 that kind. But whether they shut their eyes or not to the 
 
26 
 
 fact that no Imperial Government would ever consent to 
 deal with the hierarchy as representatives of the Roman 
 Catholics of this country, they could not shut their eyes to 
 the fact, that the resolution of Dr. Haughton did not get over 
 that difficulty—it simply left the question as it was before. 
 If, further, the Roman Catholic laity said, “ Let that question 
 alone, we will settle that in a few years with our hierarchy,” 
 he dissented from such a reply being accepted. He had to 
 live in the country with them, and had a direct interest in the 
 question how the education of Roman Catholics was to be 
 given. He had given reasons why they should still advocate 
 Mr. Fawcett’s solution as the only one they could consistently 
 uphold now, which had the great recommendation which the 
 present bill had not—that it would preserve higher education 
 in the country. The proposal of Dr. Haughton, no doubt, 
 would not destroy higher education, and would raise a whole¬ 
 some competition, and, therefore, if he were compelled to 
 accept it as an alternative with the bill of the Government, 
 he would adopt Dr. Haughton’s proposal. As the matter 
 now stood, however, he simply proposed the rejection alto¬ 
 gether of Dr. Haughton’s proposition, with the view of 
 moving — 
 
 “ That the Board be requested by this Senate to omit in 
 the last clause of the petition the words, e in its present 
 form,’ and add, f and your petitioners humbly pray that your 
 honourable House will pass the Dublin University Bill, intro¬ 
 duced by Mr. Fawcett, and read a second time last session.” 
 (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Stoney said he would support the rejection of Dr. 
 Haughton’s motion, for the purpose of moving the insertion 
 of clauses, copies of which had been circulated. The Prime 
 Minister, in his recent speech to the House of Commons, 
 stated that this University had made its proposal. In making 
 that statement he presumed every one must have understood 
 him to have regarded Mr. Fawcett’s bill as being the pro¬ 
 posal of the University. Now, he believed that Mr. Fawcett’s 
 bill, although it obtained a considerable measure of support 
 from this University, in no degree emanated from it, and 
 in no degree could it be said to be a complete expression 
 of the opinion of the University (Hear, hear). Mr. Fawcett’s 
 bill, so far as he knew the members of the University, was 
 approved of by them, not as a complete measure, but a mea¬ 
 sure, which was a step towards the solution which they 
 foreshadowed in the future, and which was what they really 
 approved. He thought, therefore, the Senate would do well 
 
27 
 
 in adopting the suggestion of Dr. Haughton and Dr. Traill— 
 to include in the petition to the House of Commons some 
 real statement of what its views are, and what they think 
 the solution of this question ought to be (hear, hear). In 
 forming their judgment on this, it was of importance to 
 make use of the information which they might derive 
 from a wide view of the Universities of modern Europe. 
 Amongst those Universities the German Universities stood 
 forth, mafked both with great excellences and great defects. 
 During the present century they had attained an extraor¬ 
 dinary amount of intellectual force, and those who studied the 
 question might, he thought, satisfy themselves that all their 
 excellences hinged round that which was called the lehrfrei- 
 heit —the opportunity which was allowed to the professors of 
 German Universities to choose the subjects in which they 
 shall teach, and the aspects in which they shall treat them. 
 (Hear, hear). This allowed a great multiplicity of teach¬ 
 ing, and great variety of views. Nothing was burked or 
 kept back—there was full discussion, and the whole atmos¬ 
 phere was alive with intellectual force. On the other hand, 
 the defects of the German system might be traced to the lern- 
 freiheit —the too great liberty, amounting to licence—on the 
 part of the students to select what they shall be taught, and 
 how they shall be taught it. He need not pass into this branch 
 of the subject, and more particularly because we, in these 
 countries, had no difficulty to contend with in dealing with 
 students. The students of the British Isles are accus¬ 
 tomed to have courses prescribed to them, and what was 
 wanted is judiciously to set them somewhat more at liberty 
 other than to endeavour to draw the bridle tighter. The 
 excellences of the German system he thought they ought very 
 carefully to lay to mind. A Professor in one of the German 
 Universities was usually appointed simply a Professor in a 
 Faculty, without the subject in which he was to teach being 
 designated, and a Professor appointed with the view of his 
 becoming an instructor in Philosophy, might, so far as any 
 constraint would prevent, actually teach Greek. The con¬ 
 dition which renders the great liberty allowed to the German 
 teachers possible is the enormous number of the staffs of their 
 Universities. He had lately, before him the programme of 
 the winter semestre of one of the medium Universities of 
 Germany, and although that programme contained only a 
 portion of the studies pursued, it enumerated no less than 
 106 ordinary and extraordinary Professors, exclusive of the 
 additional staff of teachers, who are called privat-docenten . 
 
28 
 
 The Roman Catholic demand might be formulated into 
 two propositions; one of these had, as he understood, the 
 hearty sympathy of Mr. Gladstone, and it would obtain his 
 (Mr. Stoney’s) hearty sympathy also, if he thought that the 
 section of the population to which it referred w T as one of any 
 sensible number. The other was a proposition to which, he 
 believed, the Government would not give any countenance, 
 much less was it likely that Parliament would give it the least 
 support. The first proposition w T as that every person who 
 had a conscientious objection to receiving University educa¬ 
 tion from teachers whose instruction was not pervaded with 
 Catholic thought, shall still have an opportunity of obtaining 
 the privilege of University degrees. The second proposition, 
 which he thought was clearly indicated in the demand of the 
 Catholic Bishops from the beginning to the end, was that no 
 Catholic should have an opportunity of acquiring in Ireland 
 a University degree, except he submitted to receive his edu¬ 
 cation within this intellectual cage. With that proposition 
 he felt no sympathy, and he did not think that that Senate, 
 or the greater Senate which ruled the nation, was likely to 
 give it any support (hear). For the very few persons who 
 were described by the first proposition, the proposal he had to 
 make would abundantly provide. If the teaching staff of 
 the University were expanded, a variety of teaching would 
 arise, and those who had any special views, or who wished to 
 limit themselves to any narrow platform of thought, would be 
 able to pick out the teachers most suited to them, and in that 
 way would be able to obtain the narrower education they re¬ 
 quired. For his own part, after very considerable acquaint¬ 
 ance with university students of all denominations that pre¬ 
 vailed in Ireland, he did not believe that university students 
 would make their choice upon any such ground (applause). 
 However, he thought it eminently desirable that an opportu¬ 
 nity that they could make such a choice should exist. This 
 he believed to be sufficiently provided in the resolutions he 
 was about to propose. On this ground, as well as because 
 he had a direct objection himself to the solution proposed by 
 Professor Haughton, which, he believed, was perhaps the 
 worst that could be suggested, and as he looked upon that 
 which had been proposed by Dr. Traill as being inadequate 
 to meet the position of affairs, he would support the rejection 
 of Dr. Haughton’s amendment. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. King-Irwin desired to say a few words, as 
 one deeply interested in that great University. He advo- 
 
29 
 
 cated very strongly the rejection of Dr. Haughton’s amend¬ 
 ment, because, in the first place, he entirely denied that 
 it had a foundation in fact; and, secondly, because it was 
 not their province to make provision for the relief of other 
 religionists in the matter of University education. Those 
 people were well enough able to take care of themselves, 
 while this University had enough to do in minding its own 
 interest. He further objected strongly to this amendment, 
 because in the face of the whole empire it would be a direct 
 retrograde step (hear, hear) ; and while the expanded intel¬ 
 lect and intelligence of the country was altogether going in 
 the direction of endeavouring to fuse into one great national 
 family the various denominations of the country, and to 
 smooth away, as far as conscience would permit, those 
 differences that kept them asunder, it would marshal the 
 Protestants and Roman Catholics of Ireland in two dis¬ 
 tinct camps, and render it impossible that on any subject 
 united education could be given. He did not agree with the 
 Romish bishop from whom a learned judge, a member of 
 his own Church, elicited the answer, that there was not one 
 thing that could be taught in common to Protestants and 
 Roman Catholics, except the first four rules of arithmetic. 
 It was a shame to say, in the nineteenth century, that they 
 could not be taught history in common, and a disgrace to 
 Roman Catholics themselves that moral science could not be 
 taught in a united University. He, therefore, strongly de¬ 
 precated the idea of co-ordinate endowment. He did not 
 believe that Roman Catholics stood in need of additional 
 liberty in the matter of education. He believed that this 
 University had already proposed to furnish them with all the 
 liberty they could possibly require, except that liberty which 
 they could not, and no human being could give them, the 
 liberty of progressing with the age. He could but say to 
 them, “ Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in 
 your own bowels.” He could but pray for them in the 
 Apostle’s words, “ Be ye also enlarged.” The Roman 
 Catholics must vindicate their own liberty. But surely if 
 they wilfully preferred to be purblind, that was no reason 
 for compelling others to put out their lamps. There could 
 be no question that this bill, if passed in its present shape, 
 would ultimately make the whole University education of 
 Ireland one great field for Romanism to triumph in. With 
 Romish Fellows controlling the curriculum of this University 
 it would be very soon reduced to the condition of the so-called 
 
30 
 
 University in Stephen’s-green. In fact, the result of any 
 temporizing with the bill would be to throw the whole of the 
 education of Ireland into the hands of the Roman Catholic 
 party. Neither Presbyterians nor Church of Ireland Pro¬ 
 testants had consciences elastic enough to enable them to 
 manufacture faggot colleges. They and the Presbyterians 
 would, therefore, be limited to a small number of represen¬ 
 tatives on the Council, while there would be no limit put 
 upon the efforts of Romanism to pack it with its own emis¬ 
 saries. 
 
 Isaac Butt , Q.C., M P., hoped the Senate would allow him 
 to say a few words. He was there merely by the accident 
 of the adjournment of the previous day. Perhaps he might 
 have wished not to be called upon to express any opinion on 
 the bill till the time when he should have to give his vote in 
 another place; but he felt that this was an occasion on which 
 no person who had filled a chair in that University, and who 
 had the privilege of a place on that Senate, ought to be 
 absent. He believed the speakers were right who had 
 stated that this was a matter of life and death to this Uni¬ 
 versity. He believed even higher interests were involved, 
 and that upon the course the Senate now took might largely 
 depend whether its teachings for the Protestants of Ireland 
 was to be preserved—whether Trinity College was to last, 
 and whether the great Protestant community of this country 
 was to have, or Ireland was to have, the benefits of a higher 
 education in future. He, therefore, asked the Senate to 
 give him their attention while he spoke, at all events, the 
 very deep and solemn convictions of his own judgment. He 
 could not agree with the gentleman who had last sat down, 
 that their considerations ought to be governed or influenced 
 in the slightest degree by the old cant about Romish bishops. 
 He thought that had passed away from the halls of every 
 enlightened institution. They were at present the National 
 University of Ireland. It was impossible, if they wished to 
 retain the position of a National University, they could shut 
 out from their deliberations the wants and wishes of the 
 nation: and, as he understood, no person proposed to do 
 that. Dr. Traill thought those wishes might be fairly met 
 by a great concession—by opening the Fellowships and 
 Scholarships to Roman Catholics. The paper prepared by 
 Mr. Stoney proposed denominational schools. All persons, 
 as far as he understood, were agreed that some concession 
 must be made to the Roman Catholics, that this University 
 
81 
 
 could not stand, since the abolition of the Irish Church at 
 all events, upon its old foundation, as a great Protestant 
 institution; but, at the same time, be it remembered, the 
 most liberal Protestant institution that existed in Europe 
 (hear, hear). It opened its halls to Roman Catholics half a 
 century or more before such a thing was thought of in either 
 Oxford or Cambridge (hear, hear). But he believed they 
 could not take their standing longer as an exclusively Pro¬ 
 testant institution. With respect to the bill proposed by 
 Mr. Gladstone, he had no objection to state his opinion, and 
 whatever course any other people in this country might take, 
 he was ready to abide by it in his place in another Senate. 
 It was a bill to destroy all University education in Ireland. 
 Its object was not to place it in the hands or under the con¬ 
 trol of a Roman Catholic or Protestant party, but to place 
 it under the control of an English Government, that would 
 job our education as almost everything else was jobbed (hear, 
 hear). The grievance which Mr. Gladstone, himself, said 
 he had to meet was, that there were Roman Catholics in 
 Ireland—and he (Mr. Butt) believed there were Protestants 
 too—who conscientiously believed they were not justified in 
 sending their children to an educational institution in which 
 religion was not interwoven with the whole education. At 
 present, the Roman Catholic who held that view could not 
 obtain a degree, for his child, but the Protestant could in 
 this College. Mr. Gladstone’s bill was nominally to remedy 
 that grievance, but never was machinery so disproportioned 
 to any object as the machinery he provided for that. The 
 end of it was, that for the Roman Catholic there would be a 
 great University established in Dublin, of Government nomi¬ 
 nees, and a professorial staff nominated by those nominees ; 
 
 . and what would the Roman Catholic gain by it ? Simply 
 this, that his child might come up, attend an examination, 
 and take his degree, having been educated wherever he 
 pleased; and at this point he wished to state, that if many 
 persons there had been brought into contact, as he had been, 
 with the students of the Catholic University—the so-called 
 University, for that was its proper name, not being a Uni¬ 
 versity—they would not speak so lightly of the education 
 given there, or of the liberality or largeness of thought the 
 students acquired there (hear, hear). At present, a Roman 
 Catholic student, educated anywhere, might be sent up 
 to attend the quarterly examination, and take his degree, 
 without ever having received a particle of education within 
 
32 
 
 the walls of Trinity College (hear, hear) ; and the only thing 
 necessary for the Roman Catholics would be what this bill 
 now proposed, that moral philosophy should be excluded 
 from the examination. And if bursarships were founded by 
 this college, which could be held by non-resident persons, 
 everything would then be done that the bill proposed to do 
 (hear, hear). He was far from saying that that would do 
 the Roman Catholics justice. But to do this, Mr. Gladstone 
 proposed to subvert University education in Ireland (hear, 
 hear). It was as if a person complained that he wanted to 
 get a door into the Hall in which they now stood, and that 
 Mr. Gladstone came and said, the only way to do that was to 
 pull down the whole building and erect a new one (applause). 
 
 If this bill, or anything like it, passed, it could not be a 
 final one (hear, hear). Whatever they did, they must at all 
 events be able to say that for this generation, and as far as 
 they could speculate on the currents of human thought that 
 were likely to arise, they had settled the University question 
 in Ireland. This bill was but the letting out of waters—• 
 the beginning of endless strife. The Roman Catholics would 
 never be content with an unendowed college. Year by year 
 an agitation for it would progress; a time might come when 
 an English Minister would want votes—English opinion 
 would alter, and English opinion latterly was very fluctuating 
 on this subject, and when there would be no objection to endow 
 Roman Catholic colleges. And what would be going on in 
 the meantime ? The number of students in this college would 
 diminish, for once the University degree was lowered, the 
 upper classes in Ireland would, more than they do at present, 
 send their sons to Oxford and Cambridge (hear, hear); and 
 Government would have to deal ten years hence, not with a 
 college that could point to its giving education to a vast 
 number of students, but with a University that could show 
 only deserted halls. He did not think it would be ever so 
 reduced as to have as few pupils as the Magee College, which, 
 he b lieved, was to be a principal feature in the University 
 scheme. Now let them look calmly at that. There was the 
 inevitable pressure of popular demand—they could not get 
 rid of it. They, in Ireland, lived in a country where the 
 mnss of the population were Roman Catholics, and until that 
 was changed there would be a constant pressure of demand, 
 and the balance would be adjusted, either by endowing Roman 
 Catholic colleges from the spoils of Trinity College, or its 
 revenues would be taken away and given to the University, 
 
33 
 
 to distribute in bursarships and scholarships. No greater 
 calamity could befall Ireland—that he could see as clearly 
 as he saw his path from where he stood to* the door opposite. 
 But would they prevent it passing by offering Mr. Fawcett’s 
 bill? He did not want to discuss that bill; it might or 
 might not be a mistake on the part of the Board to assent 
 to that bill. But the Homan Catholic people of Ireland 
 would not be satisfied with that bill, and that in itself was a 
 fatal objection to it. By adopting that bill the Senate would 
 be weakening their own position, and doing nothing more. 
 Mr. Fawcett’s bill settled scarcely anything. Let him ask 
 them did they desire to let that college stand as it did, 
 or would they have Homan Catholic worship in another 
 chapel? They must either do that if they wished to estab¬ 
 lish equality, or abolish the Protestantism of that insti¬ 
 tution, destroy its essentially Protestant character, and 
 admit the possibility of a Homan Catholic priest being 
 nominated on the occasion of a vacancy (which, he trusted, 
 was a distant prospect), to fill the office of Provost. Sup¬ 
 posing the latter to come about, did they imagine that the 
 Protestants of Ireland would continue to send their children 
 there, and if they did not, would not all the consequences 
 he predicted follow ? He thought the plain answer to Dr. 
 Traill’s proposal was, that the Homan Catholics would 
 not be now satisfied with Mr. Fawcett’s bill. What then 
 remained ? There were two solutions before the Senate, one 
 Dr. Haughton’s, that they should express an opinion that 
 the Roman Catholics laboured under an injustice which 
 ought to be remedied by the endowment of denominational 
 colleges (for it went to that) : and the other, the suggestion 
 made by Mr. Stoney, “ That due provision can be made with¬ 
 in the University for the members of all religious denomina¬ 
 tions in Ireland, on the principle of all sharing alike in the 
 non-theological faculties, while separate provision is made for 
 each Church in the faculty of theology alone.” Mr. Stoney, 
 who told them that the English House of Commons would 
 never agree to the endowment of a Homan Catholic college, 
 appeared to believe that they would not object to the estab¬ 
 lishment of Homan Catholic professoriates of theology. If 
 they admitted that, where was the objection to giving them 
 a college of their own, at the other end of the College Park 
 (hear, hear). But, he preferred Dr. Haughton’s amendment, 
 and would support it—the recognition of a system under 
 which the Protestant parent could continue to send his chil¬ 
 dren to a collegiate training, conducted conformably with his 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 religious conviction, and under which the Roman Catholic 
 parent could do the same, both securing for their children 
 University degrees. 
 
 He was told that this bill would pass, but he did not believe 
 it. He did not believe there was a wish on the part of the 
 Roman Catholic people to interfere with the College (hear). 
 On the contrary, he believed that if they that day conducted 
 their deliberations with a spirit of national liberality, they 
 would be astonished at the exhibition of Roman Catholic 
 opinion that would defend their University against attack 
 (hear). But if they said, “We will shut you out from all 
 privileges; we will do nothing for you; we will take it upon 
 ourselves to dictate to you,” they could not expect what he 
 thought they would otherwise obtain. It was in the spirit 
 he suggested that he asked them to accept Dr. Haughton’s 
 amendment. It had occurred to him that, if possible, they 
 should not separate without coming to some unanimous reso¬ 
 lution, and that that might be best arrived at by the appoint¬ 
 ment of a committee—including some of the most distin¬ 
 guished Catholic laity, members of that body—to ascertain 
 what would really satisfy the Roman Catholics. Then, if 
 practicable, they might adopt the conclusions of that com¬ 
 mittee ; and if once a demand went forth with the united 
 voice of Protestants and Roman Catholics, the English Par¬ 
 liament could not then refuse it, even if it was in favour of 
 denominational education. He was earnestly anxious for the 
 maintenance of a system of university education in Ireland, 
 of which religion would be an essential part. He did not 
 wish to see the education of Ireland severed from religion, 
 be it Roman Catholic or Protestant. It was not with the 
 Roman Catholic religion that they had now to war, but with 
 the spirit of infidelity and unbelief prevailing on the Conti¬ 
 nent of Europe, spreading into England, and extending even 
 to Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Butt concluded his speech in the words:—I will not 
 take on myself the responsibility of saying to a nation that still 
 desires to maintain, as of old, educational institutions 
 connected with religion, that they shall not have them. 
 If there be a Roman Catholic parent who wishes for his 
 child that he should be trained in an education of which 
 religion is an essential part—that all his teachings should 
 arm and instruct him against the seductions of an unbe¬ 
 lieving age, God forbid that I should say nay. If the 
 Protestant parent wishes the same—and Protestant parents do 
 wish it—-I pray that long may Trinity College supply him with 
 
35 
 
 such an education, and earnestly, and with all my heart, I 
 pray that an institution as grand, as powerful, and as dis¬ 
 tinguished, may be raised up to do the same for my Roman 
 Catholic countrymen. I ask of you—I ask of every man who 
 wishes learning and religion to be combined—and com¬ 
 bined they must be if both are not to suffer—to think 
 seriously on the issue that is submitted to us to-day. I 
 ask them to say whether, to abandon the high ground of 
 religious teaching, because we fear an English Parliament 
 will not sanction it, be not to abandon principle to expe¬ 
 diency ? Let us be true to our traditions—to the greater 
 traditions of the Christian faith. Let us be true to the 
 charter of our founders, who endowed us not merely that 
 we might teach letters, but that we might train men in 
 purity and religion. If this University is to fall, we will 
 be “ better in the chronicle ” by not betraying these high 
 and solemn trusts. If this be the last meeting of the old 
 Dublin University, let us speak the words that religion and 
 learning never should be severed—words worthy of our 
 place among the Universities of a Christian empire. If we 
 are to fall, let us fall with dignity, drawing the robe of truth 
 closer still around us as we fall. Do not deceive yourselves. 
 You are to pronounce whether Ireland is to retain reli¬ 
 gious educational institutions—whether, in a nation whose 
 religious convictions are interwoven with all the fibres of a 
 nation’s heart, you are to establish a national University from 
 which religion is to be excluded. You are to determine 
 whether for the Protestants of Ireland there is to be a Uni¬ 
 versity in which they can find religious teaching. For the 
 Roman Catholics of Ireland you are to determine, as far as 
 you can, whether, in the so-called National University of 
 their country, they are to find religious teaching. It is be¬ 
 cause I have a deep and solemn conviction that in the ques¬ 
 tion before you these great issues are involved, that I am 
 sure you will pardon me for having spoken with the earnest¬ 
 ness that I have (applause). 
 
 Rev. Professor Jellett , S.F.T.C., said he was anxious to 
 say—and he thought that, perhaps, it would conduce most 
 to the despatch of business, if he confined himself to the 
 distinct question before them—namely, the amendment of 
 Dr. Haughton—he was anxious to say in a few words, 
 why, if it were possible that the opinion of the Senate 
 should not be had on that proposition—that was to say, 
 if it were possible that anything like the previous question 
 could be carried, why he thought that would be the best 
 
36 
 
 course to adopt. But before he said a word from himself— 
 and all that followed would be, of course, only his own— 
 he would make one remark on the part of the Board, or 
 of the several members he had consulted—that they were 
 most anxious that every member of the Senate should have 
 the perfectly unfettered discretion to propose any amend¬ 
 ment whatever. (Hear), If the law fettered him in any 
 way, and if the law could be relaxed, they (the Board) 
 would think it all the better, and welcome the relaxation. 
 Therefore, he said for the Board, before beginning to 
 speak on his own part, that they were not anxious that 
 there should be any restriction, but, on the contrary, that 
 every member should have free and full opportunity to 
 propose any suggestion he chose. Now, with regard to 
 Dr. Haughton’s amendment, he was of opinion that if it 
 were possible that the opinion of the Senate could not be 
 taken upon it, the result would be welcome—to him, at 
 least. In the first place. Dr. Haughton’s proposition, to 
 his mind, did not in any way affect the assent that he gave 
 to Mr. Fawcett’s bill. If the Catholic University were 
 chartered and endowed by the State to-morrow, his alle¬ 
 giance to Mr. Fawcett’s proposal would remain exactly as 
 before. He should support the motion for throwing open 
 the honours, emoluments, and privileges of the University 
 to all his countrymen, just the same whether it was or 
 was not chartered, or whether there was a certain class 
 who refused to take advantage of these honours and pri¬ 
 vileges so thrown open. (Hear). Therefore, he objected 
 to these two propositions being placed in contradistinction, or 
 opposition to each other; because, so far as he was con¬ 
 cerned, he would support Mr. Fawcett’s alike, whether 
 the other was assented to or not. (Hear). So far, he had 
 no doubt that he expressed the feelings of a great num¬ 
 ber present (Hear). But in what he proposed going on 
 to say, he would, probably, differ from a great many. In 
 deciding the question, whether the State ought to grant 
 an endowment to the Catholic University, or to any de¬ 
 nominational University, they must, in the first place, resolve 
 that the State cannot, with consistency, hold itself in¬ 
 different between the system of mixed education and deno¬ 
 minational education. For right or wrong, for weal or woe, 
 the State had already pronounced its preference for the sys¬ 
 tem of mixed above denominational education, and from 
 that it was impossible to recede (Hear). Therefore, the 
 State could not, with consistency, undertake to place a 
 
37 
 
 denominational institution on the same level with a mixed 
 institution (Hear). It remained, however, a question 
 whether the State, not preferring—comparatively, at least— 
 the denominational, system, ought, nevertheless, in deference 
 to the expressed opinions of any influential body in the State, 
 grant an endowment and a charter on such a principle. He 
 was not prepared absolutely to deny that (Hear). No doubt 
 it was one of the most difficult problems any statesman had 
 to solve. When a demand was preferred, of which he did 
 not approve, but which came from a body of men in the 
 country sufficiently large, sufficiently influential, and suffi¬ 
 ciently intelligent, to have their voices heard, it was one of 
 the most difficult problems a statesman had to solve, to de¬ 
 termine what answer he was to give ; and, certainly, he was 
 not, under all circumstances,justified in saying, “No; I 
 disapprove of your proposal, and, therefore, I will refuse to 
 grant it.” 
 
 He admitted that there was a deal of force in w r hat had 
 been said, what right had they to decide the question of 
 denominational education ? But why should they be driven 
 into the position of being compelled to give an answer to 
 the question of others, “ Suppose we are ever so wrong, if 
 we wish to have a denominational institution of that kind, 
 are you justified in refusing it to us ?” He was not prepared 
 to say that under all circumstances the State would be jus¬ 
 tified in making such a refusal; but what the State was 
 justified in doing was this—the State was justified in saying 
 —“ Before we grant a demand which we think not a good 
 one—a demand which we think, when carried out, will not 
 be beneficial to the country—before we grant that in com¬ 
 pliance with the expressed wish of a number of persons, -we 
 must have the clearest evidence—evidence coming from the 
 individuals themselves—that the grievance sought to be re¬ 
 medied really exists.” (Hear and applause). He had not 
 to his mind—and it was one of the reasons why he could not 
 assent to Dr. Haughton’s proposition—distinct proof coming 
 from the persons who were supposed to be the sufferers (hear, 
 hear). He had had proofs coming from other persons pro¬ 
 fessing to speak on their behalf; but no distinct proof coming 
 from the alleged sufferers themselves that they are labouring 
 under that grievance. Where was the document—the largely 
 signed document presented to the House of Commons, say¬ 
 ing, “We, Roman Catholics, who have signed this, object 
 to mixed education for our children, and ask you to charter 
 a denominational institution for us.” (Hear). There was 
 
38 
 
 not such a document in existence, so far as he knew. A 
 memorial was presented in 1870, and they would collect two 
 important things from it—that it did not ask for a charter 
 for a denominational University, and that it did not profess 
 to come from the alleged sufferers. Both of these conside¬ 
 rations had weighed upon his mind so far, that he could not 
 say that there was distinct proof that sufferers really existed, 
 and for that reason he could not support Dr. Haughton’s 
 proposition. But if there was a document presented to Par¬ 
 liament signed by all the leading Boman Catholics of this 
 country, saying, “We cannot accept your education bill; 
 it is contrary to the principles of our religion to accept it, 
 and we ask the State to give us one of which our religion 
 approves”—he could not preclude himself against saying 
 that the State might make such a concession. As yet, how¬ 
 ever, he had not seen a distinct proof of that, and therefore 
 he could not assent to Dr. Haughton’s proposition, though 
 he did not wish to say no to it. W ith all respect to Mr. 
 Butt, he would say there was a great difference between 
 religious instruction being provided within the same walls, 
 and taking the men out of the College to be educated apart. 
 It was in that word “ apart,” he saw a strong objection to 
 this denominational education (applause). He did not speak 
 merely in the interests of Protestants or Roman Catholics, 
 but he said that he, as a Protestant—and he believed he 
 could say the same of other Protestants—had been wonder¬ 
 fully improved by the intercourse of men of opposite faith 
 whom they met in this place (hear, hear). When the Uni¬ 
 versity Club was instituted, and when they all met together, 
 he could see the advantage of that mixture, which com¬ 
 menced here and was carried on for many a year. Many of 
 his own friends were Roman Catholics, and he appealed to the 
 young men who had passed through Trinity College, whether 
 there had not always been friendly intercourse between 
 the students, and whether there was any difference of any 
 kind made between Protestants and Roman Catholics (ap¬ 
 plause). They had associated there on terms of the greatest 
 friendship, and he believed he was justified in making the 
 boast, that there were no Roman Catholics and Protestants 
 who associated in life afterwards on more—perhaps he might 
 say on as friendly terms, as those whose intercourse com¬ 
 menced in Trinity (hear, hear). It was because he did not 
 wish to marshal the youth of their nation in two separate 
 camps, or as it had been well said, to take them in their 
 cradles, and keep them apart from the cradle to the grave. 
 
39 
 
 that he could not, except under the strongest pressure, agree 
 to say “aye” to the institution of denominational education. 
 He had said under what circumstances he would be disposed 
 to say “ aye ” to it. He would say it with sorrow and coer¬ 
 cion put upon him, because he was not the one to decide the 
 question. But he would say with sorrow that the sole insti¬ 
 tution in which Protestants and Roman Catholics met on a 
 footing of equality, should be divested of that character; 
 that the Roman Catholics who exercised a softening influence 
 on their differences there were to be removed; that hence¬ 
 forth Roman Catholics and Protestants were to be as much 
 separated as they were before their introduction to Trinity 
 College, and that the separation was to be widened (ap¬ 
 plause). 
 
 Professor Webb thought it would be the greatest misfor¬ 
 tune if they were to evade the pronouncing of an opinion by 
 having recourse to the previous question, because then this dis¬ 
 cussion—the most important ever held within these walls— 
 would prove entirely abortive. The proposition, that the 
 Roman Catholics had a grievance and just cause of com¬ 
 plaint, seemed to him to be self-evident. For why all this 
 agitation on this University question, and why this elaborate 
 bill, unless the Roman Catholics of Ireland had just cause 
 of complaint against the present condition of University edu¬ 
 cation ? In consideration of that just cause of complaint, he 
 thought it would be impossible for them to ignore the fact 
 that there were some causes of complaint which no legislation 
 whatever would entirely remove (hear, hear). No legislation 
 would give a Catholic college the prestige of an intellectual 
 career of well nigh 300 years, or the great place Trinity occu¬ 
 pied in public estimation. But a most important concession 
 in the discussion of the question had been made by Professor 
 Jellett, when he admitted, in spite of his admiration of the 
 united system of education, that if there was any general 
 well-authenticated demand for denominational education, it 
 would be a matter for grave consideration, whether or not 
 that demand should be conceded (hear, hear). That such a 
 demand existed could not be reasonably denied. With 
 regard to the evidence of such a demand, it was not to be 
 sought from so-called liberal Roman Catholics, who, in the 
 club, in the drawing-room, or in the corner of the Four 
 Courts, would breathe in whispers what their own private 
 opinions were. The statesman would only listen to those 
 who spoke out. The Irish people had spoken by their 
 members of Parliament, by their municipalities, by the 
 
40 
 
 Press, by the declaration signed by the most eminent men 
 of their communion. The demand of the Roman Catholics, 
 as he understood it, was exactly in the form in which it 
 had been stated by Mr. Butt (hear, hear)—that religion 
 shall not be divorced from education, and that education 
 shall be essentially religious. Whether that was a legiti-* 
 mate demand he did not pause to inquire. During the 
 whole of his life he had been an advocate of united edu¬ 
 cation. When he stood as a candidate for the represen¬ 
 tation of the University, that was the programme with 
 which he started. He had signed the petition in favour 
 of those portions of Mr. Fawcett’s bill which were for open¬ 
 ing the College, and he trusted that whatever might be the 
 future of the College, and, whatever might be the legisla¬ 
 tion to regulate that future, no temptation would induce the 
 College to recede from the position it took up on Mr. 
 Fawcett’s bill—that the institution should be open to all 
 without distinction. But he could not ignore the fact, that 
 the Roman Catholic portion of the community was in favour 
 of a different system. He was an advocate of united 
 education, but it was only under the limitations, subject to 
 which every principle must be maintained. He was an 
 advocate of united education ; but only in so far as it 
 was possible, only in so far as it was free, only in so far 
 as it was compatible with interests, superior even to those 
 of union. Pie took it for granted that united education 
 on common Christianity was entirely out of the question. 
 He held that the attempt to force united education on a 
 reluctant people would be a new coercion bill. Of united 
 education, under these circumstances, what would be the 
 cost? Mr. Fawcett’s bill showed clearly what must be 
 the cost, and one of the most objectionable portions of 
 that bill was the necessary consequence of the principle on 
 which that bill proceeded. They could not accept the prin¬ 
 ciple and ignore the consequence. There could be no com¬ 
 mon education, except in subjects which admitted of a com¬ 
 mon treatment; and if Roman Catholics and Protestants 
 were to be coerced into one common college, the conse¬ 
 quence would be that modern history, moral philosophy, and 
 metaphysics, must be expunged from the curriculum. How 
 could there be community of sentiment between Roman 
 Catholic and Protestant on the Popedom, the Reformation, 
 the religious wars, the great Revolution, or on any of the 
 turning points of modern history? How could there 
 be community between Roman Catholic and Protestant, 
 
41 
 
 on the subject of moral philosophy, when one regarded 
 it as a part of theology, and the other looked upon it 
 as a portion of speculative science ? How could there be 
 a common treatment of those high speculations which treat 
 of the origin of the world, the nature and destiniesof the 
 soul, the being and the attributes of God? That was 
 the great objection to the bill of Mr. Fawcett. It con¬ 
 tracted the education of the Protestant, in order that it 
 might coerce the conscience of the Catholic. It mutilates 
 the education of the Protestant in order that it might coerce 
 the conscience of the Roman Catholic. What was the 
 price which Protestants were to pay for Mr. Fawcett’s bill? 
 The abandonment of the Divinity school—consecrated by so 
 many great memories; the entire extinction of religious in¬ 
 struction ; the closing of the college chapel; the mutilation of 
 their free and fearless and unfettered education, by expunging 
 from it modern history, moral philosophy, and metaphysics 
 (no). Mr. Gladstone’s bill in this respect was far superior 
 to Mr. Fawcett’s. In providing for separate colleges it 
 afforded a refuge to the speculative studies and religious 
 supervison which were banished from the common Univer¬ 
 sity. But their was one fatal objection to the Government 
 bill. It subverted the whole academical system, without 
 solving the political problem. The political question was 
 occasioned by a popular demand for religious as opposed to 
 secular education. How was that question pretended to be 
 solved ? The secular colleges were endowed; the religious 
 college was left without a shadow of endowment. The 
 secular colleges, located in imposing public buildings, were 
 in full working order; the religious college was left without 
 Fellows, without Professors, without library or museum, 
 without any local habitation calculated to impress the imagi¬ 
 nation or attract respect. The question with which they had 
 to deal was, whether education was to be religious or merely 
 secular ? If that question was not solved, the whole matter 
 would be still open. The great object of the legislation of 
 Mr. Gladstone was first to introduce justice, then equality, 
 and then to close the question for ever. But what was the 
 concession to the Roman Catholics in this case? They 
 would be granted a charter, and privilege to compete for 
 public honours. They would be started without intellec¬ 
 tual prestige or wealth, in a competition with the oldest 
 college in the country. It was evident such a concession 
 to the Roman Catholics would be perfectly illusory (no). 
 The bill would leave the third branch of the upas tree in full 
 
42 
 
 bloom, the third head of the Irish Cerberus in full cry, the 
 third wound of political system of Ireland still open, and the 
 political question still unsolved. The only logical alternative, 
 as it seemed to him, was either obliteration of University 
 education altogether in this country, or the endowment of a 
 Catholic College. He, therefore, supported Dr. Haughton’s 
 amendment. The feeling of the Roman Catholic com¬ 
 munity, so far as they were able to learn it from those who 
 were the recognized leaders of the Roman Catholics, was 
 in favour of denominational education; but the question 
 they had to discuss here, as it appeared to him, was not the 
 freedom of the Roman Catholic, but the freedom of the 
 Protestant (Hear, hear). Their ideal of education was an 
 education free and unfettered, such as, in the words of Milton, 
 enabled men, to discharge magnanimously the offices both 
 of peace and war.” If the bill passed, such an education 
 would be impossible in Ireland. It mutilated education. It 
 destroyed the independence and autonomy of the Univer¬ 
 sity. It left its governing body the arena of conflicting 
 claims and perpetual discord and intrigue. It committed 
 Protestant and Catholic to an internecine contest for the 
 mastery of the higher education of the country. 
 
 Dr. Tarleton , F.T.C., came forward to oppose, to the 
 utmost of his power, the amendment of Dr. Haughton. 
 One of the greatest orators Ireland had ever produced—Mr. 
 Butt (hear, hear)—had said, he believed, everything that 
 could be said in favour of the amendment proposed by Dr. 
 Haughton. He thought that, at present, there might be 
 some grounds for holding the existence of educational griev¬ 
 ances affecting Roman Catholics; but, after the abolition 
 of religious tests in this University, he believed no such 
 grounds would exist. When the plan was first proposed, 
 in the pamphlet of Dr. Haughton, for having a Roman 
 Catholic University, his principal reason for being averse 
 to that plan was, that it would involve that this Uni¬ 
 versity also should have a denominational character. 
 He thought nothing was more detrimental to the interests 
 of education than that it should be under the control of 
 ecclesiasticism in any form whatever. He could not bring 
 himself up to the religious level of Mr. Butt or Professor 
 Webb (laughter). He could not feel his religious senti¬ 
 ments so highly exalted as theirs, and he must own, he be¬ 
 lieved that the more free thought and opinion were on every 
 subject whatever the better would be the education pro¬ 
 vided by any institution. He believed that ecclesiasticism, 
 
48 
 
 in every shape, was more or less opposed to reform. The 
 Church of England, he was free to admit, was freer in 
 that respect than any other that ever existed. It held, at 
 one time, amongst its clergy, Dr. Colenso and Dr. Pusey, 
 and that, certainly was a very wide range (hear, hear). But, 
 even so, he held that the placing of any ecclesiastical system 
 whatever over an educational establishment, was opposed to 
 the interests of education (hear, hear). He maintained that 
 professors should be free to hold any opinions whatever, on 
 any subject, and that truth would not suffer by this freedom. 
 If any religion were true, its interests would be promoted, 
 and, if not true, the sooner it was put out of the way the 
 better. Dr. Haughton and Mr. Butt brought forward another 
 argument in favour of their claims, and that was, that it was 
 necessary to satisfy the demands of a large part of the popu¬ 
 lation of Ireland. Now, he could not think it was the duty 
 of any Government to satisfy the whims of every portion of 
 a population. If the demands were really just, no doubt they 
 should be granted; but, if the principle were admitted, that 
 the Government was to do everything that a large section of 
 the people wished for, no matter what that might be, then 
 they should admit that professors ought to be appointed to 
 teach Buddhism, in Hindostan (hear, hear), and temples 
 raised to Juggernaut at the expense of the public. 
 
 Professor Jellett .—That has been done. 
 
 Dr. Tarleton said he held it to be erroneous in principle. 
 He would not consider the observations of Dr. Shaw, for 
 he could hardly think they were serious. They seemed to 
 him to be marked by an absurdity which could not be 
 surpassed (Laughter). Professor Jellett, in his very able 
 speech, had stated a point which he believed to be of 
 the greatest importance, and that was, that there was no 
 absolute inconsistency between Mr. Fawcett’s plan and 
 a charter to a Roman Catholic University. He did not 
 think it was the duty of State to charter or endow such 
 a University; but although that was his firm belief, and 
 he hoped the majority of the Senate would take the same 
 view, yet he thought that would be less destructive to the 
 interests of education in this country than the present bill. 
 Mr. Butt had said that the future endowment of a Roman 
 Catholic College was involved in the present bill, and in 
 that he fully agreed. It provided the abolition of reli¬ 
 gious tests in this college, but the abolition would from 
 the very effect of the bill become a dead letter. The only 
 office in Trinity College of any importance at present 
 
44 
 
 affected by religious tests was the Fellowship, and it 
 would be absolutely necessary if this bill passed to 
 diminish the number of Fellowships in Trinity College. 
 There would be no funds to pay the Fellows; and in 
 consequence of that, vacancies as they occurred could 
 not be filled up, and after the lapse of ten or twelve years 
 Trinity College would remain virtually as denominational as 
 at present. After ten or twelve years Mr. Gladstone 
 might say, “ Here is a large college, richly endowed, which 
 is still denominational. Since 1 abolished religious tests 
 they have never elected a single Fellow, and in consequence of 
 their not doing so that abolition has become a mere dead letter. 
 I therefore think that in all justice an endowment should be 
 given to a Roman Catholic College.” He had not the least 
 doubt that that would be done. This bill was precisely 
 similar to Locke’s triangle, in which parts of several incon¬ 
 sistent ideas were put together. All possible schemes were 
 amalgamated in this bill; an examining Board, a central 
 University, with different colleges, having no interest what¬ 
 ever in common, and all engaged in war with each other. 
 They had here also a number of small and miserable colleges 
 affiliated to this University, and degrading in every possible 
 way the University degrees and education of the country. 
 They had, further, Mr. Fawcett’s plan by way of being car¬ 
 ried out, though he believed it was not really carried out. 
 And lastly, they had provision made in the bill that 
 there should be at some future time an endowment of a 
 Roman Catholic College. So that every possible plan which 
 had been proposed for the settlement of the question of 
 University education in this country found a place in this 
 bill, and those plans being, to a great extent, inconsistent 
 with each other, the bill was such a medley that it could not 
 be worse. Dr. Webb had stated that it was a necessary 
 consequence of united education that certain sciences could 
 not be taught at all. In that he wholly and entirely dis¬ 
 agreed with him (Hear, hear). He did not believe it was 
 the duty of a Professor of moral philosophy to force any 
 particular views on his students (Hear, hear). He merely 
 stated to them fully, and freely, the different opinions 
 held by different eminent men, and the different argu¬ 
 ments in their favour; and they were perfectly free to 
 accept those opinions or reject them as they thought fit. He 
 could not see how that was necessarily displeasing to the 
 religious convictions of any one. If his religion were true, 
 and he had valid argument to support it, he could support it. 
 
45 
 
 If it were not true, the sooner he came to that conclusion 
 the better. If they were to go in purely and simply for a 
 Roman Cotholic endowment and charter, as Dr. Haughton 
 had proposed, they would, in the first place, be going con¬ 
 trary to their convictions—at least he (Dr. Tarleton) would 
 be going contrary to his (hear, hear), and he believed they 
 would also be placing themselves in a most absurd position 
 (Hear, hear). They would be stultifying the opinions 
 already put forward by the Senior aud Junior Fellows of 
 Trinity College; and although the Senate was, no doubt, a 
 different body from either the Senior or the Junior Fellows, 
 yet, he believed, the Fellows constituted the majority of the 
 Senate now present; and it would be most unwise that there 
 should be a difference of opinion between the Senate and the 
 Fellows on this subject. It would be said in England that 
 they had twice changed their opinions, having first declared 
 for maintaining the Protestant character of the University; 
 then for Mr. Fawcett’s bill; and then, finally, for Roman 
 Catholic University endowment (Hear, hear). It would be 
 said that they had no opinions, but merely those which 
 would be most likely to conduce to their own interests 
 (Hear, hear). He did not think anything would be more 
 fatal to the interests of that University, or to having 
 their opinions listened to at all. If Dr. Haughton’s amend¬ 
 ment were rejected, he would propose the adoption of the 
 following:— 
 
 Si That, while we fully believe that the abolition of reli¬ 
 gious tests in the University of Trinity College, Dublin, re¬ 
 moves all substantial grievances affecting Roman Catholics, 
 we think that, if the Parliament of Great Britain be of 
 opinion that something further is necessary, the granting a 
 charter to a Roman Catholic University would be less inju¬ 
 rious to the interests of education than the present bill.” 
 
 And he thought it would be less injurious, because, under 
 the present bill, they would have no really great seat of 
 learning in the country, in which there would be perfect 
 freedom of thought and perfect liberty of opinion. 
 
 Rev. Joseph A. Galbraith said it was with some embarrass¬ 
 ment that he rose to address them on the present occasion. 
 He did not hesitate to say that it would cause him some 
 pain to put his hand to a petition to Parliament sitting in 
 London (laughter). Well, that was an honest expression 
 of opinion, and he hoped it would be taken as such from 
 him (hear). At the same time having a duty to perform in 
 opposing this bill, he would support Dr. Haughton’s amend- 
 
46 
 
 ment. It was satisfactory to find that there was such unani¬ 
 mity amongst them as to the merits of the bill itself—that 
 it was a bad bill for Ireland (hear, and no). Notwithstanding 
 the gentleman who cried “no” so loudly, he still adhered to 
 his opinion, that it was a bad bill for Ireland (hear, and 
 applause). 
 
 Addressing himself to Mr. J ellett’s statement that there 
 had been no expression of opinion from the persons inte¬ 
 rested in this question of denominational education, the 
 speaker said he denied the proposition. Any man who was 
 in the habit of mixing much with his countrymen—especially 
 his Roman Catholic countrymen—could not hold such an 
 opinion. He asked any intelligent member of the Senate, 
 who remembered the course of events in this country for the 
 last twenty years, to say whether or not the Catholic popu¬ 
 lation of Ireland had not pronounced unmitsakably in favour 
 of denominational education. He asserted confidently that 
 it was their universal demand. How did he know that ? 
 Was it from the declarations of those who, among Catholics 
 themselves, were called “ respectable Cawtholics ?” No; 
 that was the last quarter in which he would seek for an ex¬ 
 pression of the free and open Catholic feeling of Ireland. 
 
 An effort was made some time ago to convene a meeting 
 of that Senate to consider this question. He himself had 
 addressed a circular to some gentlemen of the denomina¬ 
 tion to which he had now alluded, and he was grievously 
 disappointed at the result. The Resolution to be proposed 
 at the meeting was reasonable enough, and ran as follows :— 
 
 “ That a Committee of members of the Senate and gra¬ 
 duates of the University be now appointed to consider the 
 best means by which the fair requirements of all classes of 
 the Irish people, in relation to university education, may 
 be met, without depriving Ireland of the advantages of a 
 collegiate system, or impairing the usefulness or destroying 
 the privileges of this University.” 
 
 From many he got no answer, and from one very re¬ 
 spected and eminent person he received the answer that he 
 could not sign the requisition convening the meeting, be¬ 
 cause her Majesty’s Government were to bring in a measure 
 to settle the question. Some people thought that the Catho¬ 
 lic people of Ireland were the slaves of Cardinal Cullen (hear, 
 hear). He had taken some trouble to learn the sentiments 
 of the Catholic people of Ireland, and his opinion was that 
 they were a manly people strongly imbued with national 
 sentiments, and that, they were not the slaves of Cardinal 
 
47 
 
 Cullen any more than they were slaves of Mr. Gladstone 
 (hear, hear). He believed that the difficulty that lay in his 
 (the speaker’s) way, in the attempt he had made^to obtain a 
 fair discussion, was not Cardinal Cullen, or the hierarchy, 
 but the influence of Downing-street. 
 
 They had been told by Mr. Jellett that no effort had been 
 made to convey to the Government of England this grievance 
 on the part of the Catholics of Ireland. The document he 
 had now before him, signed by 1,960 Catholics, many of 
 them deputy-lieutenants, nearly all justices of the peace, a 
 great number of the Catholic members of Parliament—he 
 might say all, without exception—and many of them gra¬ 
 duates of this University, disproved the assertion ; for what 
 does it contain?—this declaration :—“ That a large number 
 of Irishment are at present precluded from the enjoyment of 
 University education, honours, and emoluments, on account 
 of their conscientious opinions regarding the existing system 
 of education.” What does this prove but the fact, that the 
 system of education in this country was not satisfactory to 
 the Roman Catholic population ? 
 
 Professor Jellett —I said two things about that declaration : 
 one, that it did not come from those who professed to be the 
 real sufferers; and the other, that it did not demand deno¬ 
 minational education (hear, hear). 
 
 Mr. Galbraith said this was a question affecting Catholics 
 of all grades in this country. It was not a question for 
 those only who had reaped in profusion the professional 
 benefits of Catholic Emancipation. It was a question for 
 every man, no matter how humble his station, who had 
 the slightest aspiration for national prosperity. The 
 Catholics had never varied in their attitude on this subject. 
 Denominational education had been always a fundamental 
 principle with candidates for Catholic constituencies; whe¬ 
 ther that candidate was a Protestant or a Catholic—and 
 he thanked God for being able to say, that the Catholic 
 constituencies of Ireland had freely elected Protestants (hear). 
 And, as for Catholic journals, did they ever advocate any 
 other doctrine ? 
 
 The speaker then referred to the memorial addressed 
 by the students of the Catholic University to the Catholic 
 Bishops against the affiliation of small colleges, as degrading 
 to learning, and destructive to all mental culture. He 
 said these young men were entitled to the greatest honour 
 for the expression of such sentiments. Were Protestants 
 for ever to say that no noble, good, or patriotic sentiment 
 
48 
 
 could proceed from any man in Ireland, except he signed 
 the Thirty-nine Articles or the Westminster Confession ? 
 (laughter). 
 
 The speaker then read the following passage from a peti¬ 
 tion presented by the Catholics to the Irish Parliament in 
 1795:—“That as the general end of education is the full 
 and free development of the human faculties and the for¬ 
 mation of a virtuous character, the management of it should 
 be as little shackled as possible, inasmuch, as experience has 
 ascertained that as well in the Universities of Great Britain 
 and Ireland, as on the Continent, the improvement of the 
 mind and the extension of science are great only in pro¬ 
 portion to their exemption from any external influence or 
 restraint ” (hear, hear, and applause). 
 
 These noble words would not be easily forgotten by him, 
 and he thanked God that the spirit which dictated them to 
 the Irish Catholics of 1795, still inspired their sons in 1873. 
 
 Mr. J. Wilson , D.L., was in favour of the present 
 bill, and he did not think the Senate was taking a wise 
 course. They were in a great crisis in this country with 
 regard to university education, and they now had the greatest 
 Minister since the time of William Pitt (oh !) bringing this 
 question to the front. It became of immense importance 
 what course the Senate of the University of Dublin took at 
 that particular crisis. Dr. Haughton came forward with 
 what appeared to him a very good motion. Mr. Stoney and 
 Dr. Traill also came forward with their plans, but was that 
 the wise course to take ? Surely it would be better to say— 
 “We see this must be settled. Let us devise what is prac¬ 
 tical in the matter.” If that were not done, they would be¬ 
 come simply a debating society, and it would not be of the 
 slightest consequence to Mr. Gladstone whether that Senate 
 sat at all or not. If the University would throw themselves 
 heart and soul into the effort now being made to make a great 
 national University, it would have an enormous influence in 
 modifying the bill to suit the views so ably expressed by 
 speakers at the Senate. Mr. Butt had most eloquently 
 urged them to join as brothers, and with that he thoroughly 
 agreed; but Mr. Butt had urged them to join against the 
 British Government; whilst he (Mr. Wilson) urged them 
 to join in assisting that Government to extend the benefits 
 of University education to the whole people of Ireland— 
 ought that appeal be heard without response in that old Uni¬ 
 versity, that was the child of the English Government? 
 (Hear, hear). 
 
49 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Salmon .—I think we are wasting time when 
 we discuss any proposal which has not a prospect of passing 
 with something like unanimity, for no resolution of ours 
 will have any weight, if carried only by a narrow majority. 
 Dr. Haughton’s resolution consists of two parts: the first 
 part, in which it is hopeless to think we shall be unanimous, 
 asserts that the Roman Catholics have a just cause of com¬ 
 plaint. The second part makes an assertion in which we 
 can all agree, namely—that whether the causes of complaint 
 be just or not, this bill does not remove them, while it will 
 seriously lower the standand of University education. I ob¬ 
 ject to the first part, because this is not the place for it. Our 
 proper business here is to express an opinion on the bill, as 
 it affects ourselves, and we are travelling out of our province 
 when we undertake to pronounce on the justice or injustice 
 of the complaints of the Roman Catholics. If there were a 
 meeting in the Catholic University to discuss the bill, they 
 would tell their own causes of complaint; but we should not 
 expect them to state the grievances suffered by Trinity Col¬ 
 lege. But further, Dr. Haughton’s resolution declares not 
 merely that Roman Catholics have just cause of complaint, 
 but that they will have this just cause of complaint as long 
 as they are not given an endowment for separate denomina¬ 
 tional education. Divided as we are between denominational 
 and united education, how can it be expected that we shall 
 unanimously accept such a statement as this ? For myself, 
 I prefer united education. As a student of this college, I 
 have made, at the commons table and elsewhere, valuable 
 friendships w T ith fellow-students differing from me in reli¬ 
 gion. As a tutor I have made friendships with Roman 
 Catholic pupils, which I hope will long continue. Thus the 
 cause of united education is very dear to me; but, at the 
 same time, I am quite willing that the just claims should be 
 respected of those who prefer separate education. Such 
 persons ought clearly to be given complete facility for ob¬ 
 taining degrees. It is a different thing, however, to ask us 
 to say the Parliament will commit an injustice if it does not 
 provide an endowment for separate denominational colleges. 
 Many of us have already expressed the opinion that the 
 claims of religious equality would be fully satisfied if Uni¬ 
 versity endowments were thrown open to all without reli¬ 
 gious distinction. This is certain to be done here, and 
 Protestants will not in future enjoy any exclusive educa¬ 
 tional endowments; it seems hard, then, to say that an 
 injustice will be committed unless Roman Catholics are 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 given endowments of which they shall have the exclusive 
 possession. The first part of Dr. Haughton’s resolution, 
 then, has no chance of unanimous acceptance; and I hope he 
 will not press it; for, though I cannot vote for it, I have no 
 wish to take any attitude of hostility to the claims which he 
 advocates. 
 
 If the first part of the resolution were withdrawn, we 
 might all agree in the second, that the Government proposal 
 will do serious injury to the cause of University education, 
 without doing anything to remove the grounds of complaint 
 expressed by the Roman Catholics. In the conflict between 
 different religious parties, the bill adopts Solomon’s solu¬ 
 tion—“ Cut the living child in two, and give half to the one 
 and half to the other.” No solution could be less ac¬ 
 ceptable to the people of Ireland. For myself I would 
 rather say, “ Give her the living child, and in no wise slay 
 it.” Far would I rather that this University were handed 
 over to be governed by Roman Catholics, as it has hitherto 
 been by Protestants, provided only that it still continued an 
 institution of which every Irishman might be proud, for its 
 successful cultivation of the higher branches of science and 
 learning, than that all should be destroyed, and the highest 
 standard of education in this country reduced to somewhat 
 below what is represented by the India Civil Service exa¬ 
 mination. No one who has studied the provisions of 
 the bill can shut his eyes to the fact that this will be its 
 effect, if it passes as it stands. In the first place, it proposes 
 that the affiliated institutions, the aggregate of which will 
 constitute the University, shall include not merely those en¬ 
 titled to rank as colleges, but such as no one would think of 
 ranking above schools. The inclusion of the Magee College 
 determines the character of the institutions which the 
 Government considers entitled to be affiliated under the 
 bill. I don’t want to say anything disrespectful of the 
 Magee College, where 1 understand some thirty or forty 
 young men are educated for the Presbyterian ministry. 
 But I suppose the claims of institutions to be affiliated will 
 in theory at least be estimated not by their religious merits, 
 but by the secular education which they give. Judged in 
 this way can Magee College be compared for a moment 
 with one of our great Schools, with one of the Royal 
 Schools, with Kingstown School ? Take Kingstown 
 School, for example—and compare either the number of 
 students, the standard of secular education given, or the 
 eminence of the instructors—is there any classical teacher 
 
51 
 
 at Magee College who has rendered such services to clas¬ 
 sical literature as Mr. Davies, any scientific teacher who 
 holds such a position in the mathematical world as Mr. 
 Casey, a Roman Catholic gentleman, whose instruction my 
 own son had the advantage of receiving. It would be most 
 unjust to include the first of these institutions, and shut out 
 the second. Nor does there seem any reason, as the bill is 
 framed, for shutting out the schools. Our great schools 
 have shown that they can successfully train young men for 
 the India Civil Service examination, and no one can imagine 
 that the standard of the proposed degree examination will be 
 higher. The mere business of grinding up lads for examina¬ 
 tion can be very well performed at schools. The inevitable 
 effect of the bill, then, will be to destroy University educa¬ 
 tion, properly so called, and to leave us nothing higher than 
 school education. 
 
 According to the proposed bill, there will be nothing 
 higher than the degree examination. The Professors, 
 who, as the permanent teaching staff, will hold the same po¬ 
 sition as the Fellows among us, are to be appointed not as 
 with us by examination, but by nomination. Now you can 
 secure that election shall be governed by merit only, if the 
 choice is by examination, or if the choice is made by a very 
 small number of persons acting under a strong pressure of 
 public opinion. The worst possible mode of election is by 
 the votes of a large body. I care not how respectable the 
 forty or fifty gentlemen may be who will constitute the 
 Council of the proposed University, when they come to elect 
 a Professor, it will be absolutely impossible to exclude per¬ 
 sonal, or religious, or political considerations from influencing 
 the vote of each elector. 
 
 The injury that the bill will thus do to the cause ? of science 
 and learning is not compensated by its satisfying the de¬ 
 mands of any religious party. It does not give the Roman 
 Catholics what they want, and it lowers the character of 
 University education in a wav which is as distasteful to the 
 Roman Catholics as to ourselves. On this account, if Dr. 
 Haughton will omit the first part of his resolution, I am 
 ready to adopt the second part as a valuable addition to our 
 petition. 
 
 Dr. Evory Kennedy.— I rise to move the adjournment of 
 the debate (no, no, and divide). There are men who have 
 taken a responsibility by becoming members of this Senate, 
 and they do not wish to be thrown into the vote, as if their 
 opinions were not worth having. They were at that moment 
 
52 
 
 on their trial—the most advanced University in Europe. 
 Her consistency, her magnificence of conduct, he might say, 
 had put her in the advanced guard of such institutions. 
 Under the most trying circumstances she had hitherto 
 flourished, and now when the Minister of England came 
 forward, backed by his Parliament, prepared to carry out 
 the views that they had so nobly and triumphantly carried 
 out hitherto, were they prepared to quash his endeavours ? 
 He, for one, would say they should not. They must yield 
 to necessity and progress: doing so, they should give Mr. 
 Gladstone’s proposition a fair trial. (Oh ! and no). He had 
 great regard for Dr. Haughton and Mr. Stoney, but in fram¬ 
 ing an Act of Parliament, to meet large views and national 
 requirements, he preferred Mr. Gladstone. He had brought 
 his bill before Parliament—let them give it a fair hearing 
 and a fair trial—let them lose no vantage ground in vain 
 objections and useless protests, but rather appoint a com¬ 
 mittee to watch the progress of the measure through the 
 House. 
 
 Lord Plunket said he rose to support Mr. Jellett’s propo¬ 
 sition, for he thought there could be no doubt that it would 
 be the wisest course they could pursue on the present occa¬ 
 sion, if they desired to have unanimity. (Hear, hear). He 
 wished to state very frankly, in the first place, that he was 
 altogether opposed to Mr. Gladstone’s bill in its present form. 
 He felt, in the first place, that, if it was carried out, their 
 University in the future would become altogether the mere 
 creature of the State. He felt also that the standard 
 now required for the attainment of a degree would be so 
 lowered, that it would be emasculated of all its value; 
 and, instead of an Irish University degree being, as it had 
 hitherto been, an honour to every one who obtained it, it 
 would be henceforth so associated with a supposed intellec¬ 
 tual inferiority, that it would pursue a man almost as a 
 stigma to his grave. (Hear, hear). He also opposed the 
 bill, because he believed it was not a genuine one. He 
 did not believe it to be genuine, because while it professed 
 to avoid denominational education, he looked upon it as 
 denominational education in disguise (hear). It was, lastly, 
 a bill that did not satisfy any one. It was introduced with a 
 view of governing Ireland according to Irish ideas ; and yet 
 he did not believe there was a man from the Giant’s Cause¬ 
 way to Cape Clear who approved of it (applause). There¬ 
 fore, he disapproved of the bill in its present form. Of 
 course if it were possible to alter the form, so as to remove 
 
53 
 
 these objections, he could support the bill. But at present 
 he could not see how such alterations were possible, and there¬ 
 fore, without assuming that the thing was necessarily impos¬ 
 sible, he was quite ready to support the memorial as it 
 was first submitted to the Senate, stating that the bill in its 
 present form ought to be opposed. 
 
 As to the amendment of Dr. Haughton, he must openly 
 declare his opposition to anything like denominational en¬ 
 dowment. He did so—he hoped he said it sincerely—in no 
 narrow or sectarian spirit. He wished to look at it in the 
 same spirit which, he was sure, influenced Mr. Butt, Mr. Gal¬ 
 braith, and others who had addressed the Senate—a sincere 
 desire for the welfare and honor of his native land (applause). 
 Denominational endowment was chimerical. There might 
 be party exigencies, which might seem to be necessarily pre¬ 
 paring the way for it in this country ; but there was a great 
 tide setting in, not only in England, but over the whole of 
 the world, and they might as well try to shout back the 
 waves of the sea as to establish denominational endowment in 
 Ireland. He believed that in this country, where the prin¬ 
 ciple of religious endowment had been already negatived and 
 neutralized by the abolition of the endowment of the Church, it 
 would be impossible in the future to revive that obsolete idea. 
 He also believed denominational endowment, while it appeared 
 to be based on religious equality, was nothing of the kind (ap¬ 
 plause). In this country it would lead to the ascendancy of 
 the majority. The endowment would be given to those who 
 were greatest in numbers, and the result would be that the 
 very principle of religious ascendency, to which objection was 
 taken in the case of the Irish Church would be carried out 
 in another form, and instead of general religious equality 
 they would have the very opposite. He also felt that de¬ 
 nominational endowment would not tend to finality any more 
 than Mr. Gladstone’s bill. What would be the result in 
 case denominational endowment was adopted in the future ? 
 There would be a continued agitation among the various de¬ 
 nominations, and they would be wrangling among themselves 
 for the sops cast out to them by the Government. The re¬ 
 sult would be that whichever Cerberus barked the longest and 
 the loudest would get the largest sop. He believed, there¬ 
 fore, that the endowment by the State of denominational edu¬ 
 cation, so far from taking from this country the reproach that 
 had been cast upon it, as some members of the Senate seemed 
 to expect, would only perpetuate the strife; and therefore, 
 for the honour of his country he would say, “ Do not render 
 
54 
 
 us a spectacle before the world, scrambling and fighting for 
 the sops flung amongst us by a Government at the other 
 side of the water.” They had assembled there to express 
 their opinion respecting the two bills, Mr. Gladstone’s and 
 Mr. Fawcett’s. They were called on to give their views 
 upon these two points alone; they were not a debating 
 society for deciding the abstract question of denominational 
 education; and he believed if they desired unanimity, if they 
 desired not to usurp the functions of other bodies, and if they 
 really washed to give an opinion on the subject actually 
 before them, they would support Mr. Jellett’s proposition, 
 and pronounce no opinion on the abstract question mentioned 
 in Dr. Haughton’s motion. 
 
 The Vice-Chancellor said he was very glad the ad¬ 
 journment had taken place, for he could say that proud as 
 he was to be at the head of this great and venerable Univer¬ 
 sity in the absence of the Chancellor, he never felt his privi¬ 
 lege higher or greater than when he listened to some of the 
 speeches that had been made. It would be premature of 
 them to rush forward to pronounce an opinion on this ques¬ 
 tion, in which so many were interested. He confessed he 
 was not satisfied himself that there was that depth of feeling 
 or expression of opinion on the part of the population in¬ 
 terested in University education that would enable him now 
 to pronounce finally. He respected the feelings of his Roman 
 Catholic fellow-countrymen, whether lay or clerical, and he 
 had no right to dictate to them what should be their convic¬ 
 tions on the subject (hear). But, with regard to that Uni¬ 
 versity—speaking for himself—he would rejoice at every 
 movement that opened any part of it to the fair competition 
 of all classes. That was the mature and settled conviction of 
 his closing years. That, however, was a distinct proposition. 
 They might open up the College in the most liberal spirit, 
 preserving, after all, the principle of mixed education intact. 
 Doubtless, the University system—the professorial depart¬ 
 ment, for instance—was capable of improvement; but that 
 was not the question at issue now. They had been prompted 
 by the instinct of self-preservation, and they were there met 
 together to ward off a blow which they thought would be 
 dangerous, if not destructive, to the University (hear, hear). 
 In doing that, they should, if possible, be unanimous, and 
 he, having no interests higher than the welfare of that insti¬ 
 tution, would advise them not to introduce into the proposed 
 petition any element of difference. With these remarks he 
 would now put the question, and it would be understood 
 
55 
 
 that voting non placet on the previous question, amounted 
 to saying not only that they did not mean to reject Dr. 
 Haughton’s proposition, but that they gave no opinion on it. 
 
 A division was then taken, with the following results :— 
 Placets—Rev. Dr. Carson, Rev. Dr. Malet, Isaac Butt, 
 Q.C.; Dr. Shaw, Professor Webb, Rev. Professor Haugh- 
 ton, M.D.; Dr. Wm. Stokes, Rev. Joseph A. Galbraith, 
 Wm. L. Barrington, Robert S. Reeves, Wm. Henry Stan¬ 
 ley Monck, and George Minchin Minchin—12. Non- 
 Placets—The Provost (Rev. Dr. Lloyd), Rev. Dr. Moore, 
 S.T.P.; Rev. Professor Salmon, Rev. Professor Longfield, 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs, the Archdeacon of Cork; Rev. Dr. 
 Charles K. Irwin, Dr. A. S. Hart, Professor Downing, 
 Dr. J. H. Flynn, Dr. Albert J. MacDonogh, Dr. Traill, 
 Dr. F. A. Tarleton, Dr. Apjohn, Dr. E. H. Bennett, Dr. 
 Gerald F. Yeo, Dr. Evory Kennedy, Dr. Churchhill, Rev* 
 Professor Jellett, Rev. I. Walsh, Thomas Stack, Wm. Ro-. 
 berts, J. H. Nunn, Michael Roberts, Richard Townsend, 
 H. R. Poole, Richard M. Conner, George J. Stoney, Ben¬ 
 jamin Williamson, Thomas K. Abbott; Alexander Jack, 
 James Wilson, D.L.; Lord Plunket, George Cathcart, J. 
 Dockrill, Edward Dowden, Townsend Mills, Wm. S. 
 M‘Cay, Richard Johnston, Henry Newton, Robert B. 
 Carson, and Henry Clare Kirkpatrick—42. 
 
 The previous question was declared carried, and, on the 
 motion of Dr. Traill, the Senate adjourned till 11 o’clock this 
 (Thursday) morning. 
 
 THIRD DAY—THURSDAY, 27th FEBRUARY. 
 
 The Senate of the University of Dublin resumed its 
 sitting at 11 o’clock, in the Examination Hall, Trinity 
 College. The attendance of the members was not bo large 
 as on the two previous days. 
 
 The Right Hon. Sir Joseph Napier, Bart, LL.D., 
 Vice-Chancellor, presided. 
 
 Dr. Traill , F.T.C., having been called upon, opened the 
 debate. In the outset he would say that it was not his inten¬ 
 tion to rehearse all he said on the previous day, with regard to 
 the question of the consistency or inconsistency of the Univer¬ 
 sity in apparently changing its mind from having first peti¬ 
 tioned against Mr. Fawcett’s bill, and afterwards petitioned 
 in its favour. The proposition he intended to lay before the 
 
56 
 
 Senate for its adoption was of a simple character—that the 
 Board be recommended to alter and amend clause 5 of the 
 proposed petition, so as to read as follows :—“ That for the 
 foregoing, among other reasons, we humbly pray that your 
 honourable House will not pass into law a bill, which de¬ 
 prives your petitioners of their ancient University privileges 
 and powers, and which your petitioners believe would prove 
 fatal to the cause of higher education in Ireland; and your 
 petitioners further pray that your honourable house will adopt 
 the principle of Mr. Fawcett’s Dublin University bill, which 
 was read a second time last session, and which is now before 
 your honourable House.” He had advisedly used the words 
 “ adopt the principle,” as distinguished from the details of 
 the measure, because he knew that there was great difficulty 
 as to the latter question; and the objections made by several 
 speakers on the previous day showed that. What he called the 
 principle of that bill, was that the University powers of Trinity 
 College should be continued to her, and also that the abolition 
 of tests should take place. These were the two fundamental 
 principles of Mr. Fawcett’s bill as distinguished from any 
 other solution of the question that had been proposed. The 
 petition, as laid before them, would not, in his opinion, be 
 sufficient without suggesting some solution of the difficulty 
 (hear). The attempt had been made to solve it in a parti¬ 
 cular way, and the proposition was avoided by the moving 
 of the previous question, which was carried by a large ma¬ 
 jority, though nearly all who spoke stated that they would 
 have accepted the amendment had it been the only alterna¬ 
 tive of the Government bill (hear). But that was not so, 
 and he was now introducing another alternative—the adop¬ 
 tion of Mr. Fawcett’s scheme. The Board of Trinity Col¬ 
 lege could hardly make any objection to the accepting of his 
 suggestion, for the Board, with most of the other Fel¬ 
 lows, had already petitioned in its favour (hear). Mr. 
 Gladstone, in his opening speech the other day on 
 this question, stated explicitly that the Governing Body of 
 Trinity College had put forward their own solution. There 
 was no mistake about that; and he thought that if this 
 Senate, which, of course, was not identical with either the 
 Governing Body or the Fellows (though these were largely 
 mixed up with it) were to separate without coming to a 
 solution on such a difficult proposition as was now before the 
 House, they would put themselves in this position, that the 
 Government and Parliament might naturally say —“ You 
 have already proposed a solution; you now send forward a 
 
57 
 
 petition simply petitioning against another solution, without 
 saying you adhere to your own; your opinion is shifting, or 
 you are actuated with the sole desire of preserving your own 
 interests.” (hear, hear). He thought that was a fair 
 charge that might be brought against them if they separated 
 without coming to some definite conclusion on the question. 
 The only modes of solution before them now—putting aside 
 the solution proposed yesterday—were the present bill and 
 the proposal made by Mr. Fawcett (hear). There was 
 also a series of amendments of which Mr. Stoney had given 
 notice ; but it struck him that the entire intention of these 
 amendments and the meaning of them was simply to restore 
 in another and more objectionable form that supplemental 
 charter which Mr. Stoney was so active in opposing on a 
 former occasion, when it applied to the Queen’s Colleges, 
 with which he was more immediately connected, and the 
 only difference now was that it was to come before them as 
 relating to Trinity College, and not in connection with the 
 Queen’s Colleges. Those amendments had also the objec¬ 
 tionable feature of bringing in the question of denominational 
 education in another form, the only difference being that 
 they substituted denominational halls for denominational 
 colleges (hear, hear). He thought any person who pro¬ 
 posed the adoption of Mr. Fawcett’s bill as the solution of 
 this difficulty was bound to pay considerable attention to the 
 objections urged yesterday by the speakers who advocated 
 their own theories against Mr. Fawcett’s bill (hear, hear). Dr. 
 Webb had stated that under Mr. Fawcett’s bill, equally with 
 the present bill of the Government, it would be necessary 
 that the subjects proscribed in the Government bill— 
 namely, modern history, moral and mental philosophy, and 
 political economy, should also be proscribed in the new Uni¬ 
 versity under Mr. Fawcett’s bill. He would be very sorry 
 that the opening of Trinity College under Mr. Fawcett’s bill 
 would involve such a thing. It might, perhaps, eventually 
 involve the providing of different chairs on such subjects, but 
 he hoped one of the principles of the opening of the University 
 would be that every one w T ho entered it would have an 
 opportunity of hearing every side of every question, and that 
 he would have an opportunity of judging for himself as to 
 the truth or falsehood of what he had heard. Dr. Webb 
 had also stated that he had always been in favour of united 
 education; but if so, he (Dr. Traill) did not understand how he 
 had come forward now to advocate denominational education 
 (hear, hear). It was a curious fact, perhaps not known to 
 
58 
 
 all the members of the Senate, that when the petition in 
 favour of Mr. Fawcett’s bill was last signed (after the 
 passing of the Church Act), all the Fellows, except two. Dr. 
 Shaw and Dr. Webb, had signed (hear, hear).* 
 
 In the next place Dr. Kennedy had advocated their support¬ 
 ing the Government bill; and, certainly,he did so on the most 
 extraordinary grounds he ever heard. He said that Mr. Glad¬ 
 stone was, in this bill, only carrying out what the members of 
 the University had been striving for all their lives, and their 
 predecessors before them ; and he further recommended 
 them blindly to follow the lead of the great man who, for 
 four years, had put to one side all the legislation of Great 
 Britain for the purpose of carrying out all that they wanted 
 in Ireland; and that they should do nothing else but submit 
 their private judgment to his on the matter. He could not un¬ 
 derstand what he (Dr. Kennedy) meant when he said that the 
 bill would carry out what they had been striving for. 
 Did he mean to say that they had been endeavouring 
 to exclude from emoluments in the curriculum the modern 
 history, philosophical, and political economy courses ? Did 
 he mean to say that they ever desired to affiliate all 
 the schools of Ireland to that College, and to give 
 them a vote on the Board in proportion to the number of 
 students they sent up for entrance ? or did he mean to 
 say that they had struggled for the substitution of 
 Government subserviency and Castle intrigue in place of 
 that noblest test of academical distinction—free and open 
 competition? He hoped not (hear). And, therefore, he 
 dissented from and protested against its being supposed that 
 they had ever been actuated in the management of the Col¬ 
 lege by any such motives (hear). Next Mr. Butt started an 
 objection to Mr. Fawcett’s measure, that they must either 
 close their Protestant chapel or open places of worship for 
 pupils of other denominations. Well, he for one, would be 
 prepared to accept the alternative. If the number of students 
 of other denominations increased there to anything like the 
 proportions that the Episcopalians exhibited at present, he 
 concluded that they would only be too happy to open chapels 
 for them (hear) ; and, moreover, such a state of things would 
 be a proof of the success of Mr. Fawxett’s bill. Mr. Butt had 
 pressed them closer into a corner when he asked them what 
 would become of their Protestant students if a Homan 
 
 *N.B.—lie (Dr. Traill) since ascertained that Dr. Haughton and Mr. Palmer 
 had not signed the petition. 
 
59 
 
 Catholic priest were appointed as Provost. He admitted at 
 once that if such a Provost was put over them now by the 
 principle of Government nomination, and not for his scien¬ 
 tific acquirements, it would damage the College, and would 
 not be appreciated by the students—either Protestant or 
 Roman Catholic (hear). But if the result of this scheme 
 should be that 1,000 Roman Catholics should crowd upon 
 their books, as they had 1,000 Protestants at present; if the 
 result should be that in fair proportion they won their way 
 to Fellowship by free competition, and if a Roman Catholic 
 Provost should be elected for his scientific acquirements, and 
 not for his political or religious views, then, so far from the 
 place being emptied of its Protestant students, the training 
 they would have received there would have taught them a very 
 different lesson (hear). But Mr. Butt dwelt upon the word 
 Roman Catholic priest to draw off the real difficulty, which 
 was the Government nomination (hear, hear). They would 
 not object to him because he was a Roman Catholic, but 
 they might object to him because he was a Government 
 creature (hear, hear). Government nomination to the 
 Provostship was an evil, and it ought to be remedied—either 
 by returning from the Charter of Charles to that of Eliza¬ 
 beth, or by, at least, giving the academic staff, over whom 
 that Provost was to preside, a veto on his appointment. But, 
 even if it should turn out to be the ultimate result of Mr. 
 Fawcett’s bill that the great majority of the students were 
 Roman Catholics, that the mass of the Fellows became 
 Roman Catholics, and that the Provost himself was a Roman 
 Catholic, what a magnificent University, in an Ultramon¬ 
 tane country, it would be—a bulwark against clerical ty¬ 
 ranny—a standing protest against that narrow-minded 
 bigotry which would allow of no study of science as 
 science, unless such study were in harmony with the re¬ 
 ligious views of the age (hear, hear). And he made free to 
 say that, in such case, the representatives of learning and 
 free thought of that day would harbour in their minds good 
 thoughts of those who went before, and would thank them 
 from their heart of hearts for preserving to them such 
 a glorious heritage as a free and open University (loud 
 applause). 
 
 Mr. Monck , in seconding Dr. Traill’s amendment, said it 
 consisted of two parts—the first to omit the words “ in its 
 present form,” and to substitute for them the words ft into 
 law” in the fifth paragraph of the petition; and the second to 
 insert a prayer that the House would pass into law the Uni- 
 
60 
 
 versity bill of Mr. Fawcett. As to the first, its effect was to 
 substitute for a prayer for the amendment of Mr. Gladstone’s 
 bill a prayer that the House would entirely reject it. There 
 was one science which even Mr. Gladstone’s bill did not seek 
 to abolish, but which he thought the Board of Trinity College 
 had lost sight of in framing this petition—the science of 
 logic. The amendment of Dr. Traill was necessary to 
 make the petition consistent with itself. The objections 
 urged in its first, third, and fourth paragraphs touched three 
 vital principles of the bill, and if the Senate was prepared to 
 endorse these objections the only honest course was to declare 
 themselves opposed to the second reading. Take away the 
 proposal to substitute a single University for the two Irish 
 Universities the proposal to affiliate a number of small 
 colleges to the new University, and the proposal to transfer 
 the government of the University to a body of Government 
 nominees, and what principle of the bill was left untouched? 
 The only other principle that he could see in it was the safe¬ 
 guards proposed for liberty of conscience. There were three 
 of these. One was the exclusion of mental and moral philo¬ 
 sophy and modern history from the professoriate and the 
 examinations for prizes. Another was the restriction placed 
 on teachers in the University by the 11th section, and the 
 third was that imposed upon examinations by the 25th 
 section. He examined these restrictions in detail, and asked 
 whether the Senate was willing to accept any of them? 
 That the first of them was as unnecessary as it was degrading 
 to a University he was well assured. The Boman Catholic 
 students of Trinity College had never avoided these subjects, 
 as he could state from his own experience as a private 
 teacher. He would add that there were eight Irish Roman 
 Catholic members of Parliament, who were graduates of the 
 University. 
 
 Mr. Butt said there were more. 
 
 Mr. Slouch had thought there were only eight; but, at all 
 events, out of the total number two were Gold Medallists and 
 one a Silver Medallist in Metaphysics and Ethics. He then 
 examined the 11th section, pointing out that a teacher might 
 be called before the Council not merely by any of his hearers, 
 but by £C any member of the University,” and that, without 
 any evidence produced against him, he might be“questioned” 
 and convicted on his own answers. Mr. Gladstone, himself, 
 might be deprived of a chair in the University if a Straussian 
 or a Positivist joined it; for these were religious no less than 
 philosophical systems. Was the Senate going to endorse that? 
 
61 
 
 He then examined the provisions in the 25th section, with 
 special reference to granting degrees in medicine, after exami¬ 
 nations at which the candidate might adopt any theory he 
 pleased as to the nature of diseases or the appropriate reme¬ 
 dies. If they rejected these provisions, what did they accept ? 
 Was it the suppression of the Queen’s College, Galway, 
 or the spoliation of Trinity College, Dublin? But Dr. 
 Reichel—the seconder of the motion to adopt the petition— 
 had here saved him a good deal of trouble, by entering 
 into the minutest provisions of the bill and criticising 
 them severely. Surely their condemnation of such a mea¬ 
 sure should not be weakened by any qualifying clause which 
 would suggest to their friends in the House that they wished 
 the second reading to pass, and the bill to be amended in 
 committee, or that they were temporising to suit the political 
 exigencies of a political party who were believed to be about 
 to adopt that course. It was not for the Senate to adopt the 
 course which might gratify this or that political party, but 
 to put their real sentiments fully and intelligibly before the 
 House of Commons ; and he believed that the opinion of the 
 vast majority of the Senate was that the bill was bad in 
 principle, and ought to be rejected. 
 
 But his friend Dr. Traill thought that their action would 
 appear weak if they merely rejected the Government bill, 
 and did not offer to substitute anything else in its place; 
 and he therefore resolved to ask the Senate to declare its 
 approval of Mr. Fawcett’s bill again before the House, and 
 which, as Mr. Stoney remarked, the Senate had not as yet 
 formally sanctioned. For that very reason he asked them to 
 sanction it now. But though the Senate had not declared their 
 approbation of it before, the electors had done so in the un¬ 
 opposed return of Mr. Plunket, and so had the vast majority 
 of the Fellows and Professors, whose opinions ought to have 
 great weight with the Senate. The speaker here read the 
 declaration of the Fellows and Professors, dated Feb. 17,1870. 
 Two objections, he said, had been urged against Mr. Fawcett’s 
 bill, besides those touched on by Dr. Traill. One was that 
 it was out of date, and the other that it was not final. As 
 to the first, he did not think that a measure which passed the 
 'second reading by a large majority last year, and whose fur¬ 
 ther progress was only arrested by a Ministerial threat of dis¬ 
 solution, could be regarded as out of date merely because 
 Mr. Gladstone had introduced another measure, of which 
 they all disapproved. But then it was not final. Did that 
 mean it would not satisfy all parties, and stop all further 
 
62 
 
 agitation ? If that were meant, he believed it was simply im¬ 
 possible to introduce any measure that would be final. But if 
 by final was meant a system which would work successfully, 
 and to which opposition might be expected to diminish year 
 after year, then he thought Mr. Fawcett’sbill would provefinal 
 and Mr. Gladstone’s bill not. But if Mr. Fawcett’s bill was 
 not final, at all events it subverted nothing, and left us no 
 worse off after it had been tried and failed, while Mr. Glad¬ 
 stone’s bill subverted everything in the hope of erecting upon 
 the ruin a new system, whose failure he looked upon as certain. 
 He asked at least a fair trial for the mixed system, which no 
 one could say it had yet had in this University. When it 
 had been fairly tried, and proved a failure, they might 
 think of denominational endowment. He agreed with Mr. 
 Jellett, that the Irish Roman Catholics of the higher classes 
 had not given sufficent evidence of their attachment to the 
 denominational system, and rejection of the mixed system, 
 to justify the nation in acting upon it, and criticised several 
 of Mr. Galbraith’s statements relative to the Catholic lay 
 declaration, which he said was as remarkable for the omis¬ 
 sions in the list of signatures, as for the marked moderation 
 (he might almost say indecision) of its tone. It was, moreover, 
 a fact that many of the signataries had sent their own sons to 
 Trinity College.There were two important provisions in Mr. 
 Fawcett’s bill, which were not to be found in Mr. Glad¬ 
 stone’s. One was the immediate abolition of religious tests 
 which last year’s experience proved was a matter that did 
 not admit of delay. The other was the reform of the 
 Governing Body of Trinity College, which Mr. Gladstone 
 left precisely as it was, only with power to reform itself; a 
 power, which, in his opinion, Mr. Gladstone hoped would 
 remain unexercised, because it would enable him in a few 
 years’ time to sweep away the present Board, and replace it 
 by a body of Government nominees. He concluded by ex¬ 
 pressing his hope, that the supporters of the bill, now that 
 they had a definite issue before them, would speak to the 
 merits and defects of the bill, instead of indulging in general 
 panegyrics on Mr. Gladstone and his policy. 
 
 The Rev. Professor Jellett said Dr. Traill’s resolution con¬ 
 sisted of two parts, and on one of these it was absolutely neces¬ 
 sary that the Senate should pronounce its opinion—whether the 
 words, “ In its present form,” were to remain or to be struck 
 out of the petition. The other part of the resolution stood 
 on a totally different ground. It was not essential that it 
 should be embodied in the petition, however desirable it 
 
63 
 
 might he that the Senate of the University of Dublin should 
 give, as he thought it ought to give, no uncertain sound 
 upon that matter (hear). He need add very little to what he 
 said yesterday as his own opinion that their allegiance to the 
 principle of united education, as developed in Mr. Fawcett’s 
 bill, ought to be, and he thought it would be, wholly unaf¬ 
 fected by whatever other measures the Government might 
 choose to adopt (hear, hear). Whether the Government did 
 or did not intend to endow a Roman Catholic University, he 
 thought their allegiance to the great principle should re¬ 
 main unaffected; but then came the question—ought they 
 to embody this resolution in their petition, or should it 
 appear as a separate resolution ? His belief was that the 
 second course was the more desirable for the Senate to 
 adopt, and that for two reasons. In the first place, it was 
 no essential part of a petition, which was an objection to 
 the principles of the bill, that it should suggest another 
 measure. The petition was quite perfect without it. No 
 doubt it was desirable that they should be prepared to con¬ 
 struct as well as to destroy, and, therefore, he w T ould entirely 
 approve of a separate resolution, affirming not only the 
 principle to which they were prepared to assent, but the 
 contribution which the University of Dublin was prepared to 
 make towards the solution of the question. The decision of 
 Mr. Fawcett’s principle was a wholly different thing from the 
 decision of the principle which Dr. Haughton stated yester¬ 
 day. Whether that was right or not was not the thing with 
 which they were concerned, for it was not they who were to 
 endow the Roman Catholic University, or they who were to 
 leave it unendowed, but it was they who were to say they were 
 ready to throw open the prizes, emoluments, and honours of 
 their University to their countrymen without distinction (hear, 
 hear). Therefore, the affirmation of Mr. Fawcett’s principle 
 came before them as a matter of duty, and in a way that the 
 affirmation of the other principle did not come before them, for 
 was part of their duty to carry it out, but it was no part of it 
 their duty to carry out the other, no matter how desirable it 
 was that it should be carried out. The second reason was, 
 that it was desirable for the sake of unanimity that they should 
 all agree as far as they could upon the objections that were to 
 be made to the measure against which they were petitioning. 
 Let them not encumber the petition with any points on which 
 they might disagree. Let them see whether the Senate agreed 
 to say they approved of Mr. Fawcett’s principle, and let them 
 separate the two questions. He did not mean any disrespect 
 
64 
 
 to one or two gentlemen who had taken an opposite line, and 
 seemed disposed to support the Goverment bill. It was no 
 disrespect to one man to tell him he was not a dozen (hear, 
 hear); and while he entertained entire respect for the indi¬ 
 viduals who were prepared to support Mr. Gladstone’s bill, he 
 must remind them they were only individuals, and that they 
 were in a very small minority indeed (hear, hear). Therefore, 
 he did not think it necessary to modify what he had said— 
 that the objection to Mr. Gladstone’s hill would come as the 
 unanimous voice of the University of Dublin. That unani¬ 
 mity he did not wish to destroy, or in any way to weaken, and, 
 therefore, he said, let them petition against the bill without 
 putting any clause in the petition on wdiich there might he 
 difference of opinion. He was perfectly prepared, if Dr. Traill 
 would consent to divide his resolution, to move the first 
 part of it—namely, the omission of the words, “in its pre¬ 
 sent form,” and then to support the other part as a separate 
 resolution (hear, hear). He believed, although the declaration 
 in favour of mixed education might not unwisely be excluded 
 from the petition, yet such a declaration ought to come from 
 the Senate before it separated (applause). 
 
 Mr. Henry Clare Kirkpatrick said, that as the amendment 
 now before them made the petition avowedly and expressly 
 what it was before, by implication—a petition for the rejec¬ 
 tion of the bill—he hoped they would permit him, before a 
 division was taken, to say a few words in defence of the 
 measure, which had been so heartily and unanimously de¬ 
 nounced (hear, hear). The motive in convening the Senate 
 was, the hope that its opinion, deliberately and calmly ex¬ 
 pressed upon the provisions of this bill, might produce some 
 practical effect (hear, hear). Now, if the action of the Senate 
 upon that occasion displayed an utter disregard, a complete 
 indifference to the difficulties and perplexities of the present 
 political situation, was it likely to have much weight -with 
 English statesmen, who, however they might desire it, would 
 hardly, he thought, be able to deal with this subject without 
 regard to political considerations. If their suggestions were 
 to have any practical value, they should keep in view the great 
 political emergency that had arisen, and the mode in which 
 this bill proposed to meet it. What was the nature of this 
 emergency and these difficulties which were to be encountered. 
 The necessity of an alteration and extension of our Univer¬ 
 sity system had at length forced itself upon the attention of 
 the Government. Two main schemes were before the country, 
 each of which had vehement and numerous adherents. Some 
 
65 
 
 of us—of whom he was one—were in favour of united secular 
 education, and others of opinion that each religious sect should 
 have a University of its own. This bill adopted neither plan, 
 but, on the other hand, it wholly rejected neither plan. It 
 was a compromise, and endeavoured to give to each party, as 
 far as possible, that which they desired. The idea of compro¬ 
 mise, unhappily, as he thought, had never been popular in 
 Ireland. Irish parties, whether political or religious, had 
 always been so thoroughly persuaded that truth and justice, 
 and expediency lay upon their side, and that all their oppo¬ 
 nents must of necessity be either knaves or fools, that the idea 
 of concession or conciliation had rarely been suggested, and 
 if suggested, had always been, at once and without hesitation, 
 put aside. What the results had been they all knew. They 
 all deplored the calamities which the uncompromising spirit 
 of political and religious faction had brought upon their 
 country. Well, they had now an opportunity of showing the 
 sincerity of their regret—whether they were willing, even at 
 the expense of a pet theory, to join in a great common effort 
 to remove the ignorance and to heal the divisions which have 
 been the main sources of all the misfortunes that have afflicted 
 and disgraced the country. Mr. Kirkpatrick then proceeded 
 to show how the hill would affect Trinity College, asserting that 
 the diminution of its wealth would be inconsiderable, and that 
 the Prime Minister had stated that, even after the proposed 
 deductions, it would still be the richest college in Christendom. 
 The Governing Body was to remain unchanged. He regretted 
 that its constitution w r as not to be reformed, as seniority was 
 hardly a sufficient test of administrative ability. The teach¬ 
 ing staff, also, was to remain as at present. If the salaries 
 were revised, and the remunerations fixed upon some more 
 fair and intelligible principle than they are now, there would 
 be property amply sufficient to maintain undiminished the 
 present teaching machinery in Trinity College (hear, hear). But 
 there was one great change effected in Trinity College by this 
 bill. Religious tests were altogether to be taken away. That 
 was a provision with which none of them w x ould quarrel. If 
 the authorities of Trinity College had been wise in time, and, 
 years ago, had used their influence with the Legislature to 
 accomplish this revolution, they would not to-day be embar¬ 
 rassed by the University question. 
 
 The 12th section of the bill had been alluded to in the course 
 of the debate. It gave the Board of Trinity such power to 
 make such rules for the religious instruction of persons in 
 statu pupilari, as they might think fit. It was suggested 
 
 F 
 
GG 
 
 that this provision opened a door by which denominationalism 
 wpuld creep in, which would eventually extend to all the 
 Colleges of the University. He did not believe that the 
 authorities of Trinity would thus endeavour to defeat indi¬ 
 rectly the clear intention of the law (Hear, hear). But, even 
 if they attempted to do so, the section which forbade tests and 
 opened up to all every office of emolument and influence, 
 would necessitate their failure. Further, it would he the in¬ 
 terest of Trinity College not to repel students w T ho might 
 otherwise be attracted to it. This, then, was the position of 
 Trinity College under the bill. It must inevitably be the 
 great centre of the new University system. Its influence 
 would be felt to the extremities of that system. Its example 
 would he followed by all the other colleges of the University, 
 whose ambition it would be to endeavour to rival Trinity 
 College in the excellence of its teaching, and in the opportu¬ 
 nities of liberal, high-class culture afforded to its students. 
 This was manifestly not a hill for the degradation of Trinity 
 College, as it had been termed in the course of the debate. 
 With regard to the Magee College at Londonderry, he might 
 say a word. Dr. Salmon had alluded to this College in con¬ 
 temptuous terms. He (Mr. Kirkpatrick) did not know much 
 about the Magee College (laughter). He did not know whe¬ 
 ther it merited contempt or not (Hear). Certainly, so far as 
 the numbers of its students was concerned, it did not merit 
 much consideration. The existence of this College seemed to 
 have given rise to an impression, even in the mind of the 
 Prime Minister, that the Presbyterians of this country were in 
 favour of the denominational system of education. He had 
 some opportunity of knowing the feelings and opinions of the 
 Presbyterians upon this subject, and he there emphatically 
 declared that no impression could be more erroneous. The 
 Presbyterians were, and had been for many years when they 
 stood alone in this opinion, almost unanimously in favour of 
 the establishment of a united secular system of education. 
 The Magee College was not the creation of the Presbyterian 
 Church, nor were the Presbyterians, as a body, responsible 
 for its existence. It was built in compliance with the direc¬ 
 tions contained in the will of a single individual, who 
 bequeathed funds for its endowment—funds which the Presby¬ 
 terians generally acknowledged might have been much better 
 and more usefully applied (Hear, hear). He did not antici¬ 
 pate that the Magee College would be a success, for he was 
 persuaded that when Trinity College was opened up, and 
 stripped of every vestige of sectarianism, Presbyterians would 
 
67 
 
 find attractions there of which the Magee College was altoge¬ 
 ther destitute. How could they regard Trinity as open to 
 Presbyterians in every respect, when they were debarred from 
 scholarships—or, rather, what he would consider the essential 
 feature of the scholarship—the franchise of the University ? 
 Neither were they admitted to the Fellowships. 
 
 The Vice-Chancellor —I think it was decided that Fellow¬ 
 ships were open to them, at least I was a party to a decision 
 which I thought was to that effect (Hear, hear). 
 
 Mr. Kirkpatrick said that had only been discovered last 
 year, while for 300 years Presbyterians had been most effec¬ 
 tually debarred (hear, hear). What was to be the position of 
 the Queen’s Colleges ? They were left just as they were. 
 There would thus be four, or, at least, three colleges of the 
 new University, unblemished by sectarianism, in which the 
 students of different creeds would be brought together, and 
 which would thus work, powerfully and effectually, to dissi¬ 
 pate the miserable feuds which had so long been the curse of 
 Irish society. Thus far, surely, those who were for secular 
 education had everything they could desire. And now 
 he came to the portion of the bill designed to meet the re¬ 
 quirements of those in favour of exclusively religious colleges. 
 To them the Government said—“ We cannot grant you an 
 endowment for your colleges, for that would be inconsistent 
 with the policy you forced upon us in dealing with the Church. 
 You compelled us to declare that we would never grant public 
 money in Ireland for sectarian purposes. Public money, 
 when granted, must be for the benefit of all, and not for any 
 one class. Accordingly, we provide the Queen’s Colleges, 
 and support them out of the public purse, for the use of all 
 religious sections in Ireland. We go further than this, for 
 we open up Trinity College, which is not a State institution, 
 and is ndt maintained out of the property of the State. If 
 this does not satisfy you, and you still require exclusively reli¬ 
 gious colleges of your own, you must provide them out of 
 your own resources, but though we cannot grant you pecu¬ 
 niary assistance, we will not debar you from a University de¬ 
 gree, and your colleges may be affiliated to the University. 
 You may train your students under any system you please, 
 and provided they come up to a certain standard of academic 
 attainment, they shall be entitled to a degree of precisely the 
 same value as those obtained by any other students of the 
 University.” He asked them could any proposal be more 
 reasonable or just, or more calculated to effect a satisfactory 
 settlement of this most difficult question. There were un- 
 
68 
 
 questionably faults in the details of the bill, but these could 
 all be remedied, if those who were acquainted with the subject 
 would not stand aloof in cold disapproval of the measure, but 
 heartily assist by giving suggestions as they thought desirable. 
 He hoped the Senate would not act hastily in this matter. He 
 was sure that in dealing with this subject they would not be 
 influenced by any spirit of factious opposition to the Govern¬ 
 ment, from which this measure had originated, or any selfish 
 fear, lest the ancient prestige of their College would be dimi¬ 
 nished, but that in this great crisis of Irish history they would 
 show themselves to be animated by a disinterested zeal for 
 the extension of knowledge among the people, and a patriotic 
 desire to bring peace and contentment to this long distracted 
 country (applause). 
 
 Mr. Butt, Q.C., had a question to put to Dr. Traill, but 
 before doing so, he wished, in answer to what had fallen from 
 Mr. Kirkpatrick—that there was nothing in the Government 
 bill to alter the religious character of Trinity College (hear, 
 hear). All the College Statutes were essentially Protestant 
 and religious, and they would continue so notwithstanding 
 this bill, except the College itself, with the assent of the 
 Queen and Council, alter these statutes (hear, hear). What 
 he wished to ask Dr. Trail was, whether he was prepared to 
 accede to what Mr. Jellet had advised, as to separating his 
 proposition into two branches ? 
 
 Dr. Traill observed that he had just been watching an 
 opportunity to state that he willingly did so (hear). But it 
 should be understood that, in dividing his proposition, he was 
 not precluding himself from subsequently moving the second 
 portion of it (hear). 
 
 Mr. Butt, Q.C., said that, in the event of Dr. Traill with¬ 
 drawing the latter portion of his proposition, he would then 
 be able to give his cordial consent to the body of the propo¬ 
 sition. 
 
 Dr. Traill intimated his intention of withdrawing the con¬ 
 cluding portion of his amendment, after the word “ Ireland.” 
 
 Mr. Wilson thought it was not incumbent upon him to press 
 forward his own opinion, but that this question should be met by 
 them all in a spirit of compromise. In his opinion both sides 
 must give way. When this great question came to the bar of 
 public opinion they must yield here and there. He agreed 
 with Mr. Kirkpatrick that there was upon this question a 
 spirit of distrust, and he thought they should rather exhibit a 
 spirit of confidence in the British Parliament. Their pro¬ 
 ceedings against the great principles of the bill would not 
 
69 
 
 have the slightest effect upon the Parliament; but, if they 
 cast their lot in with them, and said they joined them heart 
 and soul in the effort now making in behalf of higher educa¬ 
 tion, the Senate would be heard before the Committee, and they 
 could then suggest modifications which would be listened to with 
 the deference due to that learned body, which is most qualified 
 to advise. It might be argued that such confidence was founded 
 on no permanent basis, inasmuch as one party was in power 
 to-day and another in to-morrow; but was it likely that a party 
 would ever occupy the seat of government who would coincide 
 with that particular view expressed by the Senate ? He would 
 ask Dr. Traill whether he was seriously and conclusively of 
 opinion that Mr. Fawcett’s bill would become law ? For his 
 part he did not believe it would. When Mr. Fawcett’s bill 
 was brought before Parliament for the second reading, Mr. 
 Gladstone said he should vote for it on that occasion, but that 
 he should distinctly refuse to accept it on behalf of the Govern¬ 
 ment, and it passed the second reading under that distinct 
 understanding. It was passed by the interest of the very 
 minister who now declared that it would not be allowed to 
 pass—under the reservation and understanding that it should 
 not be considered as a competent, final, or satisfactory measure 
 (no). He contended that Mr. Fawcett’s hill would never he 
 passed in a manner satisfactory to the requirements of this 
 country. However they might regard it, the measure pro¬ 
 posed by the Government was that which would become law, 
 and therefore he impressed on the Senate that it would be a 
 wise and prudent course to act harmoniously with the Govern¬ 
 ment. He did not ask any one to agree with him in having 
 confidence in any particular man or party, but he did not 
 think it too much to ask the Senate of that University to have 
 confidence in the British Parliament. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Reichel wished to speak to the amendment 
 as amended (by the proposition of one-half in place of the 
 whole) in consequence of something that had fallen from Mr. 
 Kirkpatrick, whose eloquent and able speech they had all 
 listened to with the greatest delight (Hear, hear). Mr. Kirk¬ 
 patrick had introduced the domain of politics nearly for the first 
 time in the course of the debate. He (Dr. Reichel) studiously 
 avoided such an issue in his introductory speech on Tuesday, 
 because he thought the domain of politics was peculiarly un¬ 
 becoming the consideration of the Senate of a University. 
 These things should be argued pro and con on purely acade¬ 
 mical grounds. Outside the University was the place for 
 political discussions (Hear, hear). But the attempt which 
 
70 
 
 Mr. Kirkpatrick made to recommend the bill on the ground 
 of politics had been met by his own admission; for what did 
 he say ? That the Bill was too good—that it would satisfy 
 neither of the two great parties in the country. If that were so 
 what use would there be in passing it ?- 
 
 Mr. Kirkpatrick said that what he observed was that that 
 would be inevitable if neither party would listen to a compro¬ 
 mise—if they were determined to push their views to an ex¬ 
 treme, which he hoped, they now, for the first time in Irish 
 history, would not be disposed to do. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Reichel ventured to predict that the lesson of 
 harmony would not be learned in a few hours, or days, or 
 weeks, even at the suggestion of so able a champion. Notwith¬ 
 standing what Mr. Kirkpatrick had in his youthful enthusiasm 
 urged, it was apparent that the majority of those present were 
 of opinion that the measure was acceptable to a certain class, 
 on the secret understanding that it was meant to do something 
 that it did not profess to do on its face, and therefore it was 
 that it was so strenuously opposed (Hear, hear). If they were 
 governed by those sentiments which ruled college life, their 
 position might be different; but a very little experience of 
 life, and of Irish life, which, of course, Mr. Kirkpatrick could 
 not yet possess, would have demonstrated the utter hopeless¬ 
 ness of what he suggested. He must mention one curious 
 fact about Mr. Kirkpatrick’s speech—though evidently pre¬ 
 pared, and manifesting great ability—he did not venture, at 
 least he did not succeed, in grappling with the objections 
 which most of them felt were valid against the bill. He did 
 not attempt to meet the objection about the degradation of 
 education which would infallibly ensue. He simply said it 
 would not ensue. But let them look the thing in the face. 
 The difficulty they would have would be, that a number of 
 affiliated colleges, and the students of these affiliated colleges, 
 would demand degrees, and if they did not get them, the 
 affiliated colleges would immediately say they had been very 
 badly treated. If they did get the degrees without the in¬ 
 struction provided by the central University, they all knew 
 what it would come to—the degradation of University educa¬ 
 tion. Either the one or other of these things would take 
 place. With the action of these affiliated colleges on the new 
 Council, in what direction was the difficulty likely to be solved? 
 Was it likely to be solved to the advantage of high-class edu¬ 
 cation, or to the advantage of low-class colleges ? As to the 
 observations made respecting the 12th section of the bill, he 
 could not quite understand the consistency of that section 
 
71 
 
 with the provision for the abolition of all religions tests in the 
 College. It seemed that the drafter of the bill had fallen into 
 a mistake, and had made the bill inconsistent with itself. It 
 had also been said by Mr. Kirkpatrick that this bill would 
 make Trinity College the great centre of Irish education. In 
 what way ? By giving the College two votes on the Council, 
 and by taking from the College £12,000 of its admitted 
 income, on the foundation of Mr. Gladstone’s statement that 
 it would still be the richest college in the world. But Mr. 
 Gladstone’s speech happened to be wrong to the tune of £10,500 
 per annum ; so that the £12,000 must be deducted from an 
 income less by the amount of £10,500. He regretted to say 
 there was the greatest degree of ignorance among Englishmen 
 about Irish affairs, and among Irishmen about English 
 affairs, and it was in dependence on that ignorance Mr. Glad¬ 
 stone had made several statements, in reference to this bill, 
 which he feared would prove disastrous. If Englishmen 
 were more conversant with Irish matters, the present bill 
 would never have been introduced—it would have been 
 laughed out of the House (Hear, hear). He agreed with Mr. 
 Kirkpatrick, that the Magee College did not represent Pres¬ 
 byterian feeling; but he also knew that the Magee College 
 was one of those mentioned in Mr. Gladstone’s speech. 
 If the Magee College was affiliated, was it to have a vote on 
 the Council, although it had not the sufficient number of 
 students to entitle it to have a vote ? Did not the very fact of 
 of Mr. Gladstone’s bringing forward in so important a plan, a 
 college so contemptible in the number of its students, and not 
 representing the Presbyterian feeling, betray an ignorance of 
 Irish affairs (Hear, hear) ? The whole bill bore the mark of 
 of ignorance of Ireland on the face of it. Let English mem¬ 
 bers of Parliament visit the colleges that are to be affiliated; let 
 them visit the so-called Catholic University (and he had Mr. 
 Butt’s authority for the propriety of that phrase), and let them 
 ask the number of students in Arts which that University had 
 within its walls, or attending its lectures, and then let them say 
 whether they would be likely to degrade university education 
 in Ireland by swamping the Council, as it will be swamped, 
 by members sent in by paltry colleges like those he had 
 named, and by lowering the standard of the degrees to the 
 requirements of these colleges which must have a vote on the 
 Council (Applause). 
 
 Professor Dowden said that although he deplored the aca¬ 
 demic defects of the bill, he would be obliged to vote with 
 Mr. Kirkpatrick. He believed the effects of the bill would 
 
72 
 
 be injurious, but be could not go to the length of some of the 
 speakers on that subject. They had heard from a quarter 
 which he believed might he trusted, that the effect of the hill 
 would be to produce division between the Roman Catholic hier¬ 
 archy and the more intelligent portion of the Roman Catholic 
 laity. It was said the laity would say, “ Here is a good offer, 
 and we must for once break with our Ultramontane leaders.” 
 The bill would not destroy the provincial academic centres, 
 for he believed Galway would be saved, and Cork, and Belfast 
 would certainly be maintained. The bill would also make 
 Dublin more than ever the centre of University education. 
 He felt a moral certainty that on Monday the bill would he 
 read a second time, and that the House would then go into 
 Committee on it. There was, therefore, no use in the Senate 
 employing their strength in a direction in which it would not 
 have effect, while they might employ it in a direction where 
 it would he useful. Although entire satisfaction had not 
 been attained, something very near it had been reached, and 
 it would be better that the Senate should not struggle against 
 fate. He trusted that while he voted with Mr. Kirkpatrick 
 and Mr. Wilson, the Senate would distinguish him from 
 them. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Poole said, Mr. Kirkpatrick had made several 
 allusions to Trinity College, in reference to its illiberality in 
 not having previously opened its Fellowships without distinc¬ 
 tion of creed. He believed it was the opinion of all there, 
 that religious equality had not been established in Ireland 
 until the abolition of the late Established Church. While 
 that religious equality did not exist, he believed, then, and be¬ 
 lieved still, that their Divinity school and their creed, as the 
 established creed of the country, had a perfect right to that 
 centre of education which had been originally established in 
 connection with that creed, and for the express purpose of pro¬ 
 moting it. But when that Church had been disestablished— 
 when religious equality became the law of the land, then it 
 was that the members of the Senate were of opinion that it 
 was the legitimate consequence of that bill that all privileges 
 and positions in that University should be thrown open ; and 
 they acceded to that request without reservation. If that had 
 not already been carried into law, it was owing to the opposi¬ 
 tion of Mr. Gladstone (hear, hear). He believed that the effect 
 of the bill would be, to inflict a signal penalty on the Univer¬ 
 sity which had come forward and opened its doors to all in 
 the country (hear, hear). On this great question of education, 
 their motto and maxim should be independence of all Govern- 
 
73 
 
 ment interference; that whatever institutions might be 
 founded—be they Roman Catholic or Protestant—they should, 
 at least, be left to their own administration—that no Govern¬ 
 ment nominee or place-seeker should be put in to manage the 
 institution (applause). Let them he managed solely in the 
 interest of the great bodies they represented. It had been 
 said that Trinity College would he an example to all the other 
 colleges ; but, he believed, an example would he made of it 
 (hear, hear), for the bill was fraught with the ruin of Trinity 
 College (hear, hear). What would be the effect so far as re¬ 
 garded the Council ? As far as he could see, under the pro¬ 
 visions of that bill, matriculated students would mean young 
 men who had entered and passed their matriculation examina¬ 
 tion, hut had not taken their degrees. It had not been de¬ 
 fined what number of years was to elapse between the matri¬ 
 culation and the degree. Let them suppose it was four years, 
 as at present, and what would be the consequence ? The 
 body that could afford to send thirteen students per annum to 
 matriculate would have one-half as much influence in the 
 proposed University as Trinity College, which could send 150; 
 while the institutions from which matriculated students might 
 be drawn were unlimited in number. Would not that be 
 annihilating Trinity College ? 
 
 The Vice-Chancellor, considering himself the responsible 
 adviser of the Senate, would just like to state in what position 
 matters exactly stood (hear). They were called upon to give 
 an opinion as to Dr. Traill's proposition to omit from the 
 petition the words—of the Government Bill—“ in its present 
 form.” Several reasons had been given in support of that 
 suggestion, but he for one would have preferred that they 
 had not gone into matters of detail—that they had followed 
 the example of the Board in keeping clear of these. A great 
 point had been made as to the abolition of tests clauses of 
 Mr. Fawcett’s Bill, but it should he distinctly understood 
 that there were no tests in the University (hear, and yes). 
 No; certainly none that he was aware of (hear). With regard 
 to the University and its Professorships the only test was 
 superior fitness according to the judgment of the electors upon 
 their solemn oaths—of course, he did not include the Divinity 
 Professor (hear). As to the tests in College, they were not, 
 properly speaking, as a Senate called upon to pronounce an 
 opinion ; but he would observe that since 1865, there had been 
 no exclusion of what he termed orthodox Protestants (Pres¬ 
 byterians, Methodists, &c.). The College statutes had been 
 revised in 1855, power having been allowed to the Sovereign, 
 
74 
 
 on its original foundation, to alter and dispense with them, 
 according to the exigencies of the times. The disabling 
 statutes were altered in 1855, and in 1865, when the clause 
 in the Uniformity Act was repealed, there was nothing to 
 preclude a Protestant Dissenter from obtaining a lay Fellow¬ 
 ship. 
 
 Mr. Kirkpatrick —May I ask if a Protestant Non-confor¬ 
 mist might hold a Fellowship without signing his assent to 
 the Thirty-nine Articles ? 
 
 The Vice-Chancellor —Not one of the lay Fellows are re¬ 
 quired to do so. There has been nothing in the College sta¬ 
 tutes to preclude their holding these offices since 1855, and 
 when the clause of the “ Uniformity Act ” was repealed, in 
 1865, there was nothing in the general law to preclude them. 
 
 Dr. Traill said he had found there was a majority—that it 
 was almost the unanimous opinion—against his suggestion; 
 and with a view to bringing about a unanimous termination, 
 he would beg leave to withdraw his proposition. 
 
 Leave was given to Dr. Traill as sought. 
 
 Mr. Stoney then proposed that the following clauses be 
 inserted in the petition :— 
 
 “ That the proposal to combine all the existing colleges 
 in Ireland into one central University will meet with very 
 serious difficulties in practice, from the great distance between 
 the several colleges to be affiliated; inasmuch as a perfect 
 University system can only be developed where the same pro¬ 
 fessoriate, the same library, the same laboratories, and the 
 same examinations are accessible to all the students, and 
 where all the students have an opportunity of mutual inter¬ 
 course.” 
 
 “ That for the advancement of learning, and in order to 
 provide fully for every section of the community, we deem it 
 desirable that there shall be a variety of teaching accessible 
 to all members of the University, upon several of the subjects 
 embraced in the University curriculum, including those respect¬ 
 ing which considerable divergence of opinion exists : and that 
 with this view we think the resources of the University of 
 Trinity College ought to be largely increased.” 
 
 “ That due provision can be made within the University for 
 the members of all religious denominations in Ireland, on the 
 principle of all sharing alike in the non-theological faculties, 
 while separate provision is made for each Church in the Faculty 
 of Theology alone.” 
 
 “ That we would hail as a boon the erection of separate 
 halls, in which a portion of the students attending the lectures 
 
75 
 
 of the University Professors may lodge and receive religious 
 instruction.” 
 
 He said he rose, in consequence of the sense which he had 
 of the grave position in which the University stood, and of 
 the importance of their taking some adequate action in refe¬ 
 rence to it, to suggest another solution of the difficulty. If 
 they now took no action, save that which was insufficient and 
 weak, the result would be, that they left it open to the persons 
 who would really have to deal with the question, to make the 
 imputation that the University had been weighed in the 
 balance, and found wanting. If they merely put forward 
 grounds of opposition to the bill before Parliament, insuf¬ 
 ficiency and weakness would be written upon every line of 
 their action. In previous remarks he had referred to the 
 defects of the Government measure, to the prominent features 
 of Mr. Fawcett’s proposed scheme, to the University system 
 of Germany, and he would not go over the same ground 
 again (hear), though it was of the greatest advantage to 
 derive all the instruction they could from kindred institu¬ 
 tions in other countries. What he was desirous of seeing 
 was a use made of the crisis for the purpose of creating 
 in Ireland a greater University, he would not say than Ireland 
 had seen heretofore, but a greater than the British Isles 
 had seen. He then referred to the reforms in the English 
 Universities, which aimed at correcting the defects found to 
 result from the subdivision of their numerous teaching staff 
 into a number of small collegiate staffs, to no one of which 
 could much liberty be allowed; and he expressed his con¬ 
 viction, that what we want in Ireland is such a numerous pro¬ 
 fessoriate as will ensure a motion in all directions over the 
 field of knowledge, so as to traverse the entire, instead of the 
 instruction being trammelled to any one groove. In the Uni¬ 
 versity of Dublin they had never had any difficulty arising 
 from the multiplicity of colleges. In England the way to 
 settle the matter would be to combine the teaching staffs of 
 all the colleges into one great University staff, which was 
 the system adopted with great advantage in Germany. With 
 such a large staff they could also allow time to be devoted to 
 original inquiry, in which they could advance learning, and 
 infuse intellectual fire into the teaching. They also required 
 a far greater diversity of teaching. He did not know any¬ 
 thing that would tend to a more wide-spread knowledge of 
 history than if they had all that could be said by both Mr. 
 Froude and Father Burke, openly stated within the halls of 
 the University (hear, hear). He would be sorry to see a 
 
76 
 
 system adopted in which Roman Catholic or Protestant conld 
 only hear his own side of debated questions (hear, hear). He 
 thought the geographical question, referred to in his first 
 resolution one of supreme importance, and he thought it 
 should be put forward as the reason on account of which 
 they were opposed to the comprehension of remote colleges 
 in this University, however good—and he believed the Queen’s 
 Colleges were very good (hear, hear)—these colleges might be 
 (hear, hear). Before he formally withdrew the other clauses, 
 of which he had given notice, he wished to ask -whether he 
 was right in assuming that he would, shortly afterwards, have 
 an opportunity of submitting them to the judgment of the 
 Senate, in whatever way the Senate may think best ? 
 
 The Vice-Chancellor said they were not called there to 
 construct a bill (hear, hear). The Roman Catholic laity had 
 a right to take the initiative, if they should think fit. The 
 object of the Senate was not to construct a bill that might 
 satisfy other parties, who had a right to speak for them¬ 
 selves (hear, hear). He thought the wiser course would be, 
 as the petition seemed, as far as it -went, to be generally 
 accepted, to confine themselves to that for the present (hear). 
 If the petition were passed, the propositions of Dr. Traill and 
 Mr. Stoney could be discussed afterwards. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Reichel said he thought it was better for the 
 present that they should confine themselves to the adoption 
 or rejection of the petition (hear, hear). He had intended to 
 second Mr. Stoney’s resolutions, as he believed it was very impor¬ 
 tant that they should adopt some constructive clauses. If they 
 did not go before Parliament with some such plan, Mr. Glad¬ 
 stone might very fairly say, “ If you can’t give me something 
 better than my bill, why, then, you had better take my bill; 
 mere opposition to my scheme is not sufficent” (hear, hear). 
 It was unstatesmanlike on the part of a great University to 
 oppose a bill without being ready to suggest something in its 
 place. He would, however, advise Mr. Stoney to withdraw his 
 resolutions for the present. 
 
 Mr. Stoney adopted the suggestion. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haughton then said he had an amendment to 
 propose. There was a feeling on the part of very many 
 members of the Senate that the words “ in its present form” 
 in the petition carried with them a sort of quasi assent to the 
 principles of the bill (hear). There was a strong feeling that 
 they should not convey even the most qualified admission 
 that they adopted these principles (hear). His amendment 
 would leave them at perfect liberty to oppose the bill at every 
 
77 
 
 stage if they thought proper. He would propose the omission 
 of the words “ in its present form,” and the substitution of 
 the words “the present bill,” which would make the para¬ 
 graph run thus :—“ That for the foregoing, among other 
 reasons, we humbly pray that your honourable House will not 
 pass the present bill, which deprives your petitioners of their 
 ancient university privileges and powers, and which your pe- 
 tioners believe would prove fatal to the cause of higher univer¬ 
 sity education in Ireland.” 
 
 Mr. Thomas T. Gray formally seconded the amendment. 
 
 The Vice-Chancellor thought it was his duty to see that, 
 before they did decide, they had the case fairly before them. 
 He thought the Board acted wisely in putting in these words. 
 They did not commit any one either against or for the whole 
 bill, but left it an open question. Dr. Haughton would, how¬ 
 ever, commit them against the bill. He (the Vice-Chan¬ 
 cellor), for one, though he was generally against the bill 
 would not feel bound to oppose all its clauses. He believed 
 that the Board had confined themselves to what would meet 
 the general feeling of the Senate, and they had done so wisely. 
 
 Lord Plunket said if the amendment of Dr. Haughton im¬ 
 plied that under all circumstances the bill was to be opposed, 
 he could not vote in favour of it. If it turned out that cer¬ 
 tain points which they regarded as essential difficulties, might 
 be modified without the measure being absolutely thrown out, 
 he thought that under those circumstances their members 
 would be justified in supporting the second reading, with 
 power of opposing it at any time afterwards. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Jellett apprehended that Dr. Haughton’s amend¬ 
 ment would not hear that decided interpretation ; and, more¬ 
 over, in his opinion, the words proposed by Dr. Haughton 
 were better than those of the Board. The sole question was 
 whether the bill could be altered in such a way in Committee 
 that neither the nominated Board nor the affiliated colleges 
 should remain part of it. If the bill could be so changed in 
 Committee, then let it pass the second reading, and be so 
 altered. Dr. Haughton’s words could not be open to objec¬ 
 tion, because they did not decide whether it was to be opposed 
 on the second reading, or passed, and essentially modified 
 afterwards. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haughton said the intention he had in proposing 
 the substitution of the words he had named for those in the 
 petition was to leave their representatives perfectly at liberty 
 to use their own discretion on Monday night next to oppose 
 the bill or not as they chose. He felt if the words now in the 
 
78 
 
 petition remained there in the unguarded way they came from 
 the Board to the Senate, their representatives would not feel 
 themselves entitled to give a vigorous opposition to the bill on 
 Monday night (hear) ; and he believed that circumstances 
 might arise that would render it desirable that they should 
 have a very wicked fight that (Monday) night. 
 
 The amendment was then put and carried by a large 
 majority. 
 
 A division was then taken on the question—that the peti¬ 
 tion, as amended, he adopted, when there voted—Placets, 
 forty-five; non-placets, six. Namely—Placets—Rev. JohnL. 
 Moore, Rev. John A. Malet, Rev. Dr. Foley, Rev. Dr. Reichel, 
 Rev. Dr. Dickson, Rev. G. Longfield, Rev. Samuel Moore 
 Kyle, Dr. Frederick J. Sidney, Dr. Samuel Downing, Dr. G. 
 F. Shaw, Dr. J. H. Flynn, Dr. A. Traill, Dr. F. A. Tarleton, 
 Dr. J. L. Apjohn, Dr. J. T. Banks, Dr. B. G. M‘Dowel, Dr. 
 Samuel Haughton, Dr. W. Stokes, Rev. Mr. Jellett, Rev. 
 James Walsh, Thomas Stack, W. Roberts, Rev. J. A. Gal¬ 
 braith, Charles Kelly, M. Roberts, Rev. H. R. Poole, 
 R. M. Conner, B. Williamson, Thomas K. Abbott, John W. 
 Barlow, J. Leslie, Robert S. Reeves, Thomas T. Gray, Rev. 
 J. P. Mahaffy, Lord Plunket, G. Cathcart, W. H. S. Monk, 
 T. Mills, R. Y. Tyrrell, W. J. Craig, W. S. M‘Cay, Richard 
 Johnson, and H. Newton. Non-placets—Dr. Evory Kennedy, 
 Alexander Jack, James Wilson, John Dockrill, Edward Dow- 
 den, and H. C. Kirkpatrick. 
 
 Professor Webb, Mr. Stoney, and Dr. Macdonogh declined 
 to vote. 
 
 It was agreed to adjourn to twelve o’clock this day, the 
 Vice-Chancellor leaving the appointment of a pro-Vice-. 
 Chancellor in his stead in the hands of the Provost. 
 
 FOURTH DAY—FRIDAY, 28th FEBRUARY. 
 
 The Senate of the University of Dublin resumed its sitting 
 at twelve o’clock, in the Examination Hall; Lord Plunket, 
 Pro-Vice-Chancellor, presiding. 
 
 Th e Pro-Vice-Chancellor —In the unavoidable absence of 
 our worthy and honoured Vice-Chancellor, an absence that I 
 am sure we all very much regret, the Provost has been kind 
 enough to ask me to occupy the vacant post. I feel that I 
 shall best consult the wishes of this Senate by not taking up 
 their precious time by any remarks as to my own unworthiness 
 to fill such a post, or my incompetency to discharge the duties 
 
79 
 
 attaching to it, for, however true (no) such a statement would 
 be, we have no time to lose in such personal dissertations. I 
 shall, therefore, throw myself on the indulgence of the Senate, 
 and hope that my friend the Provost will give me any assist¬ 
 ance, should I feel myself in a difficulty. We shall at once 
 proceed to business, and I think Dr. Traill has a proposition 
 to bring before us. 
 
 Dr. Traill then proposed— 
 
 “ That in the opinion of this Senate, it is desirable that 
 the House of Commons should adopt the principles of the 
 Dublin University Bill, introduced by Mr. Fawcett, which 
 would prevent this ancient University being deprived of its 
 privileges and powers, while abolishing all religious tests in 
 Trinity College.” 
 
 He said Dr. Eeichel had objected to the positive statement 
 contained in the other resolution,namely, “The preservation 
 of the University powers of Trinity College,” and he had, 
 therefore, altered the resolution so as to adopt the phraseology 
 of the petition on this subject. Several members of the Senate 
 had objected to the introduction of the words, “ Mr. Fawcett’s 
 Bill,” but he had simply used the words because the expression 
 “ Dublin University Bill ” might give rise to confusion as to 
 what the hill meant (hear, hear). 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Stubbs seconded the motion. 
 
 Mr. Monck desired to move an amendment, but if the 
 Senate did not wish to adopt the amendment he was quite 
 ready to accept Dr. Traill’s motion. The amendment was 
 as follows :— 
 
 “ That this Senate desires to express its concurrence in the 
 leading objects of Mr. Fawcett’s Dublin University Bill — 
 namely, the abrogation of the religious tests imposed upon 
 the Provost, Fellows, and Scholars of Trinity College, and the 
 reconstruction of the Governing Body of the same, with a 
 view to placing upon it, at an early period, Boman Catholic 
 and Dissenting representatives whose qualifications have been 
 adequately tested.” 
 
 Professor Tyrrell seconded the amendment. 
 
 The Rev. J. A. Galbraith said, he could not allow the 
 motion to pass without expressing his dissent, on the ground 
 that, when they took into account the whole series of trans¬ 
 actions that had occurred in the college with regard to Mr. 
 Fawcett’s bill, he believed no other interpretation could he 
 put upon the present proposal by the public than that the 
 college still intended to force forward that bill, as a satis¬ 
 factory solution of the Irish University question (hear, hear). 
 
80 
 
 He was of opinion that the hill had not a chance of passing; 
 he was certain of that (no). But whether or not, he would be 
 no party to putting it forward; because he knew that those 
 who were mainly interested, namely, the Catholic people of 
 Ireland, would believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Senate 
 still held that Mr. Fawcett’s bill would satisfy their claims. 
 He (Mr. Galbraith) was perfectly sure that the bill would not 
 satisfy them. It had been stated by Mr. Jellett, on a previous 
 day, that he wanted evidence—of what ?—that the Catholics of 
 Ireland wanted a Catholic college. He might not be as skilful 
 as Mr. Jellett in scanning public affairs, but he certainly had 
 no doubt in his mind that the Catholics did ask, and w r ere still 
 asking, for a Catholic college. They had asked for it in their 
 Press, by public declarations, by addresses and pledges at the 
 hustings. There was not a Catholic constituency in Ireland 
 the representatives of which had not pronounced on the point. 
 What more evidence did Mr. Jellett want ? Perhaps some 
 additional evidence might be given sufficiently potent to satisfy 
 the mind of Mr. Jellett—what it should be he knew not, and 
 could not, therefore, supply; but he had no doubt whatever 
 on the question. He had always been in favour of granting 
 to the Koman Catholics the great privilege they sought, and 
 he certainly thought the Senate ought not to he without some 
 feeling of obligation towards them for this—that during the 
 whole discussion of this question no one could put his finger on 
 any demand made by them for stripping Trinity College of its 
 privileges or of its property. And this led him to express his 
 regret that he had to read in the morning papers, in a series 
 of resolutions passed by a committee of Presbyterians with 
 respect to the provisions of the Government bill—disapproving 
 of some, approving of others—there was one resolution passed 
 by the committee which strongly contrasted with the noble 
 conduct of their Catholic fellow-countrymen—a resolution that 
 Trinity College was not robbed enough. He deeply regretted 
 that the Presbyterians of Ireland should express such an 
 opinion as this—that Trinity College was not robbed enough. 
 Knowing that the bill of Mr. Fawcett would not satisfy the 
 Catholics of Ireland, he must give Dr. Traill’s resolution a 
 decided negative. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Jellett said he would not have troubled the Senate 
 again but for—what he admitted to be perfectly fair—the 
 challenge thrown out by Mr. Galbraith. He had asked what 
 evidence they had yet of the desire of the Roman Catholic peo¬ 
 ple of this country for a separate University. Well, in 1870, 
 there was a document presented by the leading Roman 
 
81 
 
 Catholics of Ireland to the British Parliament—a document 
 signed by men of high position in the country, and whose 
 opinion should have the greatest weight in the House of Com¬ 
 mons. Mr. Galbraith asked what evidence would have satis¬ 
 fied him. He would tell him if the document to which he 
 referred—and referred with greatest respect—had contained a 
 demand for a Roman Catholic University, he would regard it 
 as conclusive evidence. But the fact that this document did 
 not contain a demand for a Roman Catholic University, or 
 anything like it, was to his mind conclusive that the men who 
 signed it could not be induced to sign a demand for a Roman 
 Catholic University; for if they could have been so induced, he 
 was perfectly sure they would have been (hear). 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Maliaffy thought Mr. Galbraith had raised 
 a false issue (Hear). As he took it the present resolution did 
 not touch the question of a Catholic University in any way 
 (Hear). He had already advocated, and would again advocate, 
 Mr. Fawcett’s solution. At the same time he was in no way 
 opposed to the Catholic University being endowed and char¬ 
 tered, whenever it should so seem right to the nation. They 
 were now considering a solution of the difficulty in which that 
 University stood, and it was highly improper to raise a totally 
 different issue for the purpose of gaining votes. They had 
 already dealt with the question of approving the claims for a 
 Catholic University ; and it would be quite competent for Mr. 
 Galbraith or Dr. Haughton to have it represented in Parlia¬ 
 ment, if that Senate had decided on leaving the matter an 
 open question—(hear)—an open question to settle the remain¬ 
 der of the University question—if there was a remainder— 
 by the founding and endowing of a Catholic UniversRy. 
 
 Dr. Shatv said that what was plain to Mr. Mahaffy was a 
 difficulty to him (Dr. Shaw). It was twenty-two years ago 
 since he proposed to open the College by abolishing tests and 
 providing for themselves by the founding of a separate divinity 
 school; and yet he felt that on the present occasion he could 
 not conscientiously attach his signature to Dr. Traill’s reso¬ 
 lution. What Mr. Galbraith had said he thought entitled to 
 great weight, and he would add this—that if they went before 
 Parliament now as a Senate, expressing a strong opinion in 
 favour of Mr. Fawcett’s bill, it would be impossible to put 
 before the House of Commons, with the same force the fact 
 that a great many of them were inclined to include with the 
 bill a provision for Catholic University education in this 
 country (hear, hear). That fact would inevitably be sub¬ 
 merged, and further, the only thing that would appear to the 
 
 (x 
 
82 
 
 House of Commons would be, that as between the Bills of 
 Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Fawcett, the Senate was entirely in 
 favour of the latter. Then, what would follow ? It would be 
 discovered that Mr. Gladstone’s made the greatest concessions 
 to the Irish Roman Catholics—went a great deal further in 
 the direction that they wanted, and, therefore, it would be the 
 more likely to pass. It was already, he thought, very likely 
 to pass the second reading; but their passing that resolution 
 would, in his opinion, make it, if possible, much more so. He 
 would be delighted to agree with Dr. Traill, provided his reso¬ 
 lution included an expression to the effect, that there was a 
 difference of opinon on the subject, or that they reserved their 
 opinion on the subject of endowing a Catholic University. If 
 they did not do something in the matter, they would be, he 
 thought, in a great difficulty before their countrymen, who 
 had, to his mind, shown sufficient evidence of their desire for 
 such a University, if it were only by the subscription of 
 i£15,000, to uphold what they have at present at their disposal 
 (Hear). 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Poole suggested that Dr. Traill might insert 
 in his proposition a statement to the effect that the Senate 
 were divided in opinion on the subject of chartering a Catholic 
 University (hear, and no), or in some other manner incorpo¬ 
 rate the result of Wednesday’s decision, when the matter was 
 avoided by the adoption of the previous question. He viewed 
 this question as one touching the University of Trinity College 
 alone. Personally he had no objection to that being done, 
 should Parliament, in its wisdom, think proper to extend. 
 University privileges to his Catholic fellow-countrymen ; but 
 he did object to the mixing up of that University with Trinity 
 College (hear). He believed in the truth of an old saying, 
 which had not come from man only, that “ two men cannot 
 walk together except that they be agreed.” In his opinion 
 the principles of the Catholic University, however he respected 
 that body, were totally opposed to, and at variance with, the 
 principles which animated those connected with Trinity Col¬ 
 lege (hear). Therefore, as regarded the University of Dublin, 
 it was his earnest wish that they should be kept completely 
 clear from all such connection, which would leave them more 
 able and at liberty to pursue their own system of liberal and 
 united education (hear). He would have no objection to 
 such an addition to the resolution, as he had pointed out. 
 
 Dr. Traill said it might conduce to a saving of time if he 
 now intimated his determination to add nothing to his propo¬ 
 sition (hear). 
 
83 
 
 Mr. Monck observed that he would also object to incorporate 
 such a statement in his amendment. 
 
 The amendment was then put and negatived, and Dr. Traill’s 
 proposition was then carried by a large majority, there being 
 only three or four dissentients. 
 
 Mr. Stoney then rose to move the following resolutions : — 
 
 “ That the proposal to combine all the existing colleges of 
 Ireland into one central University will meet with very serious 
 difficulties in practice from the great distance between the 
 several colleges to be affiliated; inasmuch as a perfect univer¬ 
 sity system can only be developed where the same professoriate, 
 the same library, the same laboratories, and the same exami¬ 
 nations are accessible to all the students, and where all the 
 students have an opportunity for mutual intercourse.” 
 
 4 4 That for the advancement of learning, and in order to 
 provide fully for every section of the community, we deem it 
 desirable that there shall be a variety of teaching accessible to 
 all members of the University, upon several of the subjects 
 embraced in the University curriculum, including those 
 respecting which considerable divergence of opinion exists; 
 and that, with this view, we think the resources of the Univer¬ 
 sity of Trinity College ought to be largely increased.” 
 
 “ That due provision can be made within the University 
 for the members of all religious denominations in Ireland, on 
 the principle of all sharing alike in the non-theological facul¬ 
 ties, while separate provision is made for each Church in the 
 Faculty of Theology alone.” 
 
 “ That we would hail as a boon the erection of separate 
 halls in which a portion of the students attending the lectures 
 of the University Professors may lodge, and receive religious 
 instruction.” 
 
 He had already laid before the Senate some of the grounds 
 upon which he thought these resolutions should be adopted 
 by the Senate. One of the propositions had reference to the 
 necessity of the geographical unity of the University, in order 
 not to trammel it with a source of imperfection. The second 
 expressed their opinion that the teaching of the University 
 should become sufficiently various to embrace all the principal 
 aspects of the several subjects of human thought, and he 
 might add that the same want of a large professoriate existed 
 in reference to several studies, about which there are no dis¬ 
 putes, simply because of the great development which many 
 sciences, &c., had attained within the present quarter of a 
 century. The third stated that the enlargement of the teach¬ 
 ing staff in Trinity College could be made the means of satis- 
 
84 
 
 fying the reasonable portion of the demands of all sections of 
 the community; and the fourth had reference to the erection 
 of new halls, in which students could reside and receive such 
 religious instruction as their parents or guardians, or they 
 themselves, might approve of, as an addition to the instruction 
 given by the University. He regarded it as a matter of great 
 good fortune that hitherto the Dublin University had included 
 only one college. It was the only collegiate University in the 
 Empire that had escaped from the frittering away of its teach¬ 
 ing power, consequent upon the staff of teachers being divided 
 into a number of paltry collegiate groups. He desired to pre¬ 
 serve for the University of Dublin that characteristic, so that 
 the teaching of every instructor connected with it might be 
 really, and not only nominally, within the reach of every 
 member. He thought that, quite irrespective of questions on 
 which the community were at variance, if they looked to such 
 questions as that which their learned Provost had at one time 
 to deal with, which Mr. Galbraith subsequently handled, and 
 which Mr. Leslie had now charge of—physical science—they 
 would surely agree that, instead of having one professor, they 
 would require a dozen, to grapple sufficiently with the various 
 subdivisions of that one subject. Even in their minor schools 
 this would be desirable. For instance, one Professor of 
 Engineering—a branch of learning daily becoming more and 
 more important—could not be expected to treat both of civil 
 engineering and mechanical engineering. In all such cases, the 
 various sides of the several questions could not be more than, 
 as it were, glanced over. Again, he did not believe that a great 
 University like that ought to devote itself exclusively to teach¬ 
 ing. It should devote its energies, in a large degree, to 
 original research; and this can best be done where the Uni -, 
 versity staff is so large that those members of it, who may at 
 any time be engaged in important investigations, can, without 
 sensible loss to the University, be temporarily relieved from a 
 portion of their usual teaching duties. Such an arrangement 
 has been made in German Universities, and has introduced 
 into them the greatest possible vitality. It was quite evident 
 such a teaching staff as he contemplated could not be provided 
 out of the present income of Trinity College, but he thought 
 the surplus of the Irish Church Fund could not be applied to 
 a better purpose than in developing the principal University 
 of Ireland into such a great University. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Mahaffy, in seconding the first clause, pro¬ 
 posed by Mr. Stoney, said it was perfectly harmless, and 
 struck upon an important point. There were members 
 
85 
 
 present who found it impossible not to speak politically, 
 and there were others who believed that the Senate was an 
 educational body, and should speak as educators. He agreed 
 entirely with the latter view, and it was as such the voice of 
 the Senate would have any value. He knew of no exigency 
 that should influence that Senate. A very important ques¬ 
 tion was before them—Was it good to have all the colleges put 
 into one, or to have them kept separate and independent? 
 They knew that one of these systems was in favour in France, 
 while the other was in favour in Germany. If the first plan 
 was adopted, there were colleges in Ireland that had a just 
 right to be included in such a University reform. In the first 
 place there was Trinity College, and there were many reasons 
 why it should be included. Then there were the Queen’s 
 Colleges, which were the homes of learning and refinement, 
 and about which, if they had not succeeded as well as they 
 ought, he had only to say that Trinity College at the same 
 age, was not much better (hear, hear). A University could 
 not grow in a day. As to the Catholic University, he 
 thought the sneers levelled at it were uncalled for (hear). 
 The Magee College had one point in common with the 
 Catholic University—it owed its existence to private bene¬ 
 faction, but it was the benefaction of one individual, who, 
 when she died, could not use her money any more, while the 
 Catholic University was supported by the contributions of the 
 poor of Ireland. A friend of his recently visited the Magee 
 College, and in the Museum he saw a series of pictures of 
 demure Presbyterian divines, and below them—he hoped not 
 in the way of irony—a number of stuffed crocodiles (laughter). 
 So far as the bill proposed that a number of incongruous he¬ 
 terogeneous colleges should be lumped together, he thought 
 Mr. Stoney’s proposition was reasonable. He saw by the 
 tone of the Times that individual, positive recommendations 
 of the Senate might have the greatest possible influence on 
 the working of the details of the bill in Committee, and 
 therefore he did not think it waste of time to discuss the 
 details. 
 
 * Dr. Traill thought the subjects treated in the resolutions 
 could be much more suitably dealt with in a pamphlet. One 
 of these resolutions, if passed, would amount to a slap at the 
 Queen’s University; and, as he did not wish to say anything 
 derogatory to them, he would move the previous ques¬ 
 tion (hear, hear). If the resolutions meant anything, they 
 meant that the supplemental charter system, which was 
 rejected in the Queen’s University, should be applied to 
 
86 
 
 Trinity College, and he objected, by a side wind, to be voting 
 anything of the sort at present. 
 
 The “previous question” was then put, and declared 
 adopted. 
 
 The Pro-Vice-chancellor suggested that the remainder of 
 Mr. Stoney’s resolutions should be proposed in globo. 
 
 Mr. Stoney said as the feeling of the Senate seemed to be 
 against the resolutions, and as he believed there would be 
 less harm done by the withdrawal of them than by having 
 them negatived, he begged leave to withdraw the other reso¬ 
 lutions (hear). 
 
 Leave was then given to Mr. Stoney to withdraw the other 
 resolutions. 
 
 The Pro-Vice-Chancellor said their business had con¬ 
 cluded, and he, therefore, delared the Senate dissolved. 
 
 The proceedings then terminated. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 The following extract is taken from the paper submitted to the 
 Senate in 1871 by the Vice-Chancellor :— 
 
 The result then appears to me to be this :— 
 
 1. That the College has certain University privileges, which have 
 
 been conferred on its Studiosi , and on its Governing Body. 
 
 2. That the University (properly so called) is a distinct Cor¬ 
 
 porate Body. 
 
 3. That the Studiosi have not, and never had, the right to elect 
 
 any of the principal officers of the University. 
 
 4. That the Governing Body of the College had the power of 
 
 making the “ leges Academise,” with reference to the con¬ 
 ferring of Degrees, and were not confined to the adoption of 
 laws of either of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. 
 
 5. That the true intent and purpose of the Charters and Statutes 
 
 is to deal with the College and the University as integral parts 
 of one Educational Institution, in which a complete course 
 of instruction in Arts and Faculties is to be provided. 
 
 Arts, according to the Scholastic meaning, may be taken to include 
 every description of knowledge that contributes to train the mind 
 and faculties of man. In this department regard is had to the 
 training and development of the capacity of the Student; he is 
 dealt with as an end unto himself. In the professional depart¬ 
 ments, his education is regarded as a means towards an end that is 
 ulterior to himself. The undergraduate course is naturally and 
 properly a tutorial preparatory system, with an exact discipline for 
 training the Studiosi. It has special and appropriate studies, and 
 progress is tested by periodical examinations. The Student trained 
 under the tutorial system of the College, as the fit preparation for 
 the special studies of a Profession, may afterwards store his mind 
 in the Schools of the Professors of the University. In both the 
 
88 
 
 3 0112 061619372 
 
 fulfilment of the prescribed conditions of graduation requires to be 
 tested by examination, or by other means that are suitable and 
 practicable. 
 
 It has been supposed by some that a University with but one 
 College is an anomaly. On the contrary, a University with several 
 Colleges is more unusual. It appears from the Eeport of the 
 Commissioners of 1863, under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 
 that “ after the most mature deliberation, they came to the con¬ 
 clusion, that it would be impolitic and inexpedient to merge these 
 Universities into one, having a Central Examining Board. The 
 greatest apprehensions” (they say) 11 were manifested of any steps 
 being taken to deprive the Universities of the exercise of their 
 ancient privilege, not merely of conferring Degrees, but of con¬ 
 ducting the examinations for them.” They were li unable to see 
 that any corresponding advantage was likely to be derived from so 
 serious a step as is implied on reducing the ancient Universities of 
 Scotland from the position of Universities, and converting them 
 into Colleges of a new National University.” 
 
 Pobteous and Gibbs, Printers, Dublin.