IRISH 
 
 Htufarsitg dhication. 
 
 -A. S IP IE -E O ZE3I 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS, IN MOVING THE SECOND READING OF 
 A BILL TO MAKE PROVISION FOR UNIVERSITY 
 EDUCATION IN IRELAND, 
 
 JULY 26th 187 7. 
 
 BY 
 
 ISAAC BUTT, 
 
 ir 7 
 
 MEMBER FOR THE CITY OF LIMERICK. 
 
 “ It is not less impolitic than it is unjust, to interfere by a great phalanx of English 
 votes to prevent a concession to Ireland, in a matter in which that country is entitled to 
 expect that its wishes should have effect given to them.” 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, February, 1S75. 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 
 M. H. GILL & SON, 
 
 50, UPPER SACKVILLE STREET 
 
 1877. 
 
 library 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
DUBLIN : 
 
 PRINTED BY W. J. ALLEY AND CO., RYDER’S ROW, CAPEL STREET. 
 
mg ms 
 3^1 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In offering to the public in its present form this reprint 
 of an effort to direct the attention of the House of Com¬ 
 mons to the grievance and injustice under which Ireland 
 suffers from our present system of university, it may be 
 useful that I should preface it by a few words upon the 
 effect of the discussion and division on the great question 
 of which these pages record a very imperfect advocacy. 
 
 With the history of u The Bill to make better Pro¬ 
 vision for University Education in Ireland ” it is not 
 necessary to trouble the reader. On the 26th of July 
 last I moved the second reading of that Bill. After a 
 debate tvhich occupied the entire evening, Mr. Plunket’s 
 motion to postpone the Bill for six months was carried, 
 after midnight, by a majority, including tellers on both 
 sides, of 202 to 57. 
 
 Only three English members voted for the second 
 reading of the Bill, and of these, one, Major Beaumont, 
 is said to have voted by mistake. If this be so, only 
 two English members, Mr. Christopher Bice Talbot, the 
 member for Glamorganshire, and Mr. John Locke, the 
 member for Southwark, recorded their votes in favour of 
 the principle of an act of plain and clear justice to this 
 country. 
 
 The speech reprinted in these pages was made in in¬ 
 troducing the second reading of the Bill. 1 spoke a 
 second time at the close of the debate, in reply to the 
 Chief Secretary for Ireland. Concluding after midnight 
 I had the disadvantage of not being reported.* In ad¬ 
 dition to myself the speakers for the Bill were The 
 
 * The fullest account that I can find in any Irish paper is the record 
 that “ Mr. Butt replied to the Chief Secretary at considerable length.” 
 
 156120 
 
 ■ A 
 
4 
 
 O’Donoghue, Captain Nolan, Mr. Errington, Mr. Arthur 
 Moore, Major O’Reilly, Lord Robert Montagu, The 
 O’Conor Don, and Mr. Cogan. Against the Bill the 
 speakers were Mr. David Plunket, who moved, and Mr. 
 Macartney, who seconded, its rejection; Mr. Lowe, Mr.. 
 Charles Lewis, Mr. Whalley, and Sir Michael Beach. 
 The Chief Secretary was the only member of the Govern¬ 
 ment who spoke. 
 
 It is impossible to deny that no occurrence of the 
 session has created the same exasperation in Ireland. 
 It has been said, that not only has a measure of justice 
 for Ireland been rejected, but rejected with something 
 approaching to contempt—that no attempt was made 
 to answer the arguments, that I am bold to say—referring 
 especially to those of the O’Conor Don—demonstrated- the 
 absolute necessity of some such measure—that no member 
 of the Government intervened in the debate, with the 
 necessary exception of the Chief Secretary to the Lord 
 Lieutenant—that no serious reply was attempted on the 
 part of the Government to a demand made by the whole 
 Catholic clergy and people of Ireland, called for by the 
 most numerously signed petitions that have for years 
 been presented to Parliament by a people who had given 
 up the habit of petitioning Parliament for redress.* It 
 seemed as if Government were determined to show that 
 as far as their influence on the debate extended, such 
 a demand was one that might be left to be dealt with 
 by speakers with no official responsibility, and whose posi¬ 
 tion in the House was not such as to entitle them to be 
 the arbiters of such a question. The remark was made 
 with some bitterness, that during a considerable portion 
 of the debate the front ministerial benches were deserted, 
 and that no Cabinet Minister, except the one who could not 
 
 * The signatures to the petition in favour of the Bill exceeded 100,000, 
 many of these signatures were those of the heads of corporations or other 
 representative bodies, the seal or the signature being reckoned only as the 
 signature of an individual. 
 
5 
 
 avoid it, thought it worth while to take part in that 
 debate. I am compelled to say, with sorrow and regret, 
 that the words spoken by the Chief Secretary were but 
 too well calculated to add to the exasperation. They 
 were not worthy of himself or the occasion. They 
 showed no careful consideration of the bearings of the sub¬ 
 ject upon which the Irish people have set their heart. 
 The curt and slighting phrases in which he set aside the 
 demand of that people resembled far more the language 
 of a debater, who was obliged to say something, and, 
 therefore, said what was smartest and readiest to hand, 
 than the deliberate utterances of a minister who had 
 weighed and considered, and thought over the demand, 
 which expressed the wants and wishes of the Irish 
 people. This (I cannot help saying) unfortunate speech 
 had no little share in producing the angry feeling which 
 has prevailed in Ireland on the subject, a feeling which 
 was not diminished by the contradiction between that 
 speech and the sentiments publicly expressed but a short 
 time since by his chief. It would be difficult to recon¬ 
 cile the declarations of the Chief Secretary with 
 the language used by the Chancellor of the Exche¬ 
 quer, once in the House of Commons, and before 
 this in replying to the deputation of the Corpora¬ 
 tion of Dublin, headed by the Lord Mayor.* It is not 
 
 *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE 
 
 at the close of his speech in the in reply to the Dublin deputation, 
 House of Commons, July 26th:— May 9th :— 
 
 “he thought there was no real “You know-as well as I do, what 
 OR pressing necessity for framing underlying fires there are in connec- 
 this or any cognate bill on the tion with such a question as that of 
 subject of university education University Education in Ireland, and 
 for Ireland, and much less was he I think you will excuse me if I do 
 disposed to approve of the Bill of not plunge into the question, further 
 the honourable member for Limerick, than to say, that i have all along 
 or to recommend the House to depart considered this is a question which 
 from the policy on this great question ought to be dealt with, and that 
 that has been pursued for so many the statements which have been 
 years.” laid before me by this deputation 
 
 CONFIRM ME IN THAT OPINION.” 
 
 A report of the interview between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and 
 the deputation from the City of Dublin will be found in the^ Appendix. 
 
6 
 
 to be wondered at if tbe incidents of this debate have 
 been eagerly seized on by those who argue that all ordi¬ 
 nary Parliamentary action is vain, and that the British 
 House of Commons will never voluntarily entertain a 
 question of doing justice to Ireland. Unhappily the 
 feeling of irritation extends to those who are far removed 
 from these extreme views, the very men to whom we must 
 look to moderate and restrain them. 
 
 For myself I should be sorry to believe that the 
 division or the incidents of this discussion represented 
 the deliberate decision either of the ministers or the 
 House. Of course in presenting the Bill to the House 
 I never expected that the second reading could have 
 commanded a majority, or that the Bill would have been 
 accepted by ministers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 in reply to the O’Conor Hon, had warned us that there 
 were provisions in the Bill which it would be very diffi¬ 
 cult for Government to adopt. But I did expect for the 
 measure a different reception, and a larger number of 
 supporters. I believe that but for the unfortunate cir¬ 
 cumstances under which the discussion took place it would 
 have obtained both. I know that but for those circum¬ 
 stances the division list in its favour would have exhibited 
 a different result, and I feel confident that the debate 
 would have taken such a course as would have elicited 
 declarations from ministers very different from the hasty 
 and ill-advised statements of the Chief Secretary. 
 
 The truth is, that the day which I myself selected, 
 when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me my 
 choice among several, turned out, by circumstances which 
 no one could foresee, to be the worst in the entire session— 
 the one least fitted for obtaining a fair discussion on any 
 question, especially an Irish one. If any one who desires 
 to understand this will take the trouble of looking at the 
 votes and proceedings of the House of Commons, that on 
 the 25th the Chancellor of the Exchequer had actually 
 
7 
 
 moved the suspension of an Irish member for alleged 
 wilful obstruction of the business of the House. That 
 motion was adjourned to Friday, the 27th. I stood, if 
 I may use the expression, on a narrow isthmus, between 
 two raging seas. But if he will look to the proceedings 
 of the 26th he will find that just before I rose to move 
 the second reading of the University Bill the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer gave notice of the resolutions by which 
 he proposed to prevent the obstruction of public business. 
 These resolutions had been anxiously looked for, and their 
 very nature made them calculated to monopolise attention. 
 Any one who knows the House of Commons will bear me 
 out in saying, that under such circumstances it would 
 have been very difficult to obtain for any question, Eng¬ 
 lish, or Scotch, or Irish, the calm attention of that House. 
 But there must be added to this, the undoubted fact that 
 a great deal of exasperated feeling against everything Irish 
 had been created. The subject I was to bring before the 
 House was one exposed to great prejudice, and requiring 
 of all others a calm and deliberate discussion. We had 
 just as little attention from ministers as we had from the 
 House of Commons. A Cabinet Council was held that 
 very day, but it was no secret that the attention of 
 ministers was engaged, not with the Irish University 
 question, but with the resolutions they proposed to sub¬ 
 mit to the House of Commons. I and my friends were 
 in a great degree prepared for this. I would have been 
 happy if by any possibility we could have avoided bring¬ 
 ing on the question at all, but such a course was ob¬ 
 viously impossible. We would have gladly seized on any 
 opportunity of escaping a division, which we knew would 
 be no fair test of the feeling of the House.* 
 
 * I have said already that it is not with me a matter of inference or con¬ 
 jecture, hut of absolute knowledge, when I say that there were members 
 prepared to vote for us who were turned away in the excitement which was 
 created by the proceedings which had then agitated the House of Commons 
 to fever heat. The greatest loss we sustained was that of two members 
 
8 
 
 Adverse, however, as was the division, we must not 
 exaggerate its effect. The advocates of free university 
 institutions had the victory in debate. No attempt 
 was made, none could be made, to displace the fact which 
 we made matter of demonstration, that the Catholic 
 people of Ireland do not, under our present institutions, en¬ 
 joy the advantages of university education. The speech of 
 Mr. Lowe admitted, in the most unequivocal terms, the 
 great grievance that exists. The more fantastic and 
 inefficient the remedy, which was the only one his great 
 ability could suggest, the stronger the proof that the 
 grievance can be redressed, the injustice remedied only 
 by giving to the Catholic people institutions framed in 
 accordance with their own religious convictions. 
 
 The division demonstrated that a great majority of 
 the Irish representatives (represented in that division by 
 56 to 14) are in favour of the establishment of university 
 institutions that will meet the wishes and supply the 
 wants of the Catholic people of Ireland.* I have, for 
 one, the most perfect confidence that if the advocates o£ 
 such institutions exert themselves with prudence and 
 earnestness, the words of Sir Stafford Northcote are not 
 far off their realization, and that “ the subject is one 
 THAT MUST be dealt with.” Nothing that passed in 
 the last session in any degree shakes my confidence in 
 this. 
 
 It is, perhaps, beyond the proper province of these 
 remarks that I should offer any suggestions on the 
 manner in which this result can best be brought about. 
 I would strongly advise that whoever takes charge of 
 
 belonging to that which is called the advanced Liberal Party, who were pre¬ 
 pared, not only to vote, but to speak for the measure, supporting it on the 
 broad ground that whatever opinions they might entertain upon the abstract 
 merits of secular or religious education, the question as to Ireland was one 
 upon which the opinions and wishes of Irishmen must prevail. 
 
 *In the Appendix will be found a summary of the Irish vote, taken 
 from Mr. McAlister’s Green Book. 
 
9 
 
 this question during the next session should bring forward 
 a general resolution declaring the necessity of a change 
 in the university system of Ireland. I am just as con¬ 
 vinced as I was two years ago, that it was essential to 
 place before Parliament a detailed measure for the 
 accomplishment of the object we have in view. It 
 was this conviction that induced me to undertake 
 the labour and the responsibility of preparing the 
 measure which I did. But this once done remains on 
 record as the practical embodiment of a plan which the 
 Irish people were willing to accept. It appears to me 
 that the next step is to urge on the attention of Parlia¬ 
 ment the monstrous nature of the grievance which is 
 admitted, and call on ministers and Parliament to devise 
 the means of remedying it. A resolution of this nature 
 is not liable to be met by the objections or the cavils 
 -which can always be urged to some of the provisions of a 
 bill. Such a resolution would leave open the question 
 between a new college in the existing university, and the 
 establishment and endowment of a separate univer¬ 
 sity. I have given my reasons for preferring the former. 
 But it does not at all follow that after inquiries such as 
 no private individual can make, a ministry determined to 
 do justice on this subject, might not find it more ex¬ 
 pedient to establish a separate university. In the pastoral 
 quoted in the speech the Catholic prelates, with a wise liber¬ 
 ality, have left it to Government to decide this question, ask¬ 
 ing only that in some form or other the benefits of University 
 Education shall be extended to the people under their 
 charge. I am disposed to believe that-all the elements which 
 enter into the determination of this question would best be 
 ascertained by a Royal Commission, fairly and impartially 
 appointed and almost mediating between those whose opi¬ 
 nions mustbe consulted. This, however, must be a question 
 for the Government. A general resolution affirming the ne¬ 
 cessity of new provisions for University Education is, in my 
 
10 
 
 judgment, the form in which the subject ought to he brought 
 before Parliament next year. We may, perhaps, hope 
 that a time will he found for pressing such a resolution 
 in a more tranquil state of the House of Commons’ at¬ 
 mosphere, than that in which, unfortunately, I was com¬ 
 pelled to make my attempt. The votes on the estimates 
 for Irish University purposes will supply fair opportunities 
 for renewing discussions, every renewal of which will 
 make the justice of the Irish demand more plain. Indeed, 
 as ministers have promised to introduce in the next 
 session a plan for intermediate education in Ireland, the 
 whole question of the principles on which educational 
 institutions in Ireland ought to be regulated must come 
 under full discussion. The great principle of freedom of 
 religious teaching, and of equality between religious 
 persuasions, is equally applicable to university, to inter¬ 
 mediate, and to primary education. 
 
 But, I feel strongly that it is not inside but outside 
 the walls of the House of Commons that this question 
 must be carried. Efforts must be made to popularize the 
 subject—to concentrate public opinion on the demand 
 that the Catholic people shall have free access to univer¬ 
 sity institutions, framed to meet their religious convictions 
 on this subject of education. This is not an ecclesiasti¬ 
 cal or a church question—it is emphatically the question 
 of the laity, who are suffering civil disabilities on account 
 of their religious faith. It is not even a Catholic ques¬ 
 tion. It is a national one. Every Irishman who loves his 
 country must feel indignant that a large portion of his 
 countrymen, no matter from what reason, are denied 
 the advantages which ought to facilitate their access lo 
 higher education. In this the country suffers, and when 
 the country suffers, every one of its inhabitants suffers 
 too. I do not believe that it would be difficult to form a 
 committee of Irishmen of different religious persuasions, 
 who would take up the question in this spirit—who would 
 
11 
 
 forward it in the way in which all political questions, 
 have been forwarded—by making efforts to engage pub¬ 
 lic opinion, by circulating publications advocating their 
 views—by pressing information both on ministers and 
 members of Parliament. There never was a question 
 pending upon which there is more room for effective 
 action of this kind. On one side there are all the facts 
 and all the arguments that considerations of either 
 justice or expediency can suggest ; on the other there 
 is nothing but prejudice and ignorance of the real state 
 of Ireland. This is just the case in which, by the force 
 of facts and arguments, both prejudice and ignorance will 
 be overcome. 
 
 One object of such a committee should be to obtain 
 clear and manifest proof that the class whose children are 
 now excluded from university education, earnestly desire 
 an institution in which they can obtain it without compro¬ 
 mising any conviction of their conscience. 
 
 May I say that another great object should be to ob¬ 
 tain, as far as possible, the co-operation of Irish Protes¬ 
 tants. I believe they have an interest in the settlement 
 of this question, as deep as that of Roman Catholics. The 
 Protestant Church of Ireland, through its bishops and its 
 laity, has repudiated education severed from religion, by 
 declarations more solemn even than those which have 
 come from the Catholic prelates. The Protestant people 
 are attached in their hearts and souls to the principle of 
 interweaving religious teaching with education. Surely 
 they must know that they cannot have it for themselves 
 without conceding it to the Roman Catholics. 
 
 But this is not all. Is any man really so incapable of 
 political foresight as to imagine that Trinity College, 
 venerable as it is, with its hold upon the respect of the 
 people, can continue as it is, if nothing is done for the 
 Catholic people ; or that the mushroom growth of the 
 Queen’s Colleges will survive the storm that will lay the 
 
12 
 
 oak of the forest low. These institutions—let me rather 
 speak of that one whose fall every true hearted Irishman 
 would deplore, Trinity College—gives advantages to 
 Protestants which are denied to Catholics. Once teach 
 the Roman Catholics that there is no hope of equality for 
 them, and human nature cannot expect them contentedly 
 to leave in the hands of Protestants the means of dis¬ 
 tancing them unfairly in the race of life. The cry for 
 abolition of all university endowments will be raised. 
 Let us not deceive ourselves—it will have too much of 
 justice to be resisted. In the changes and chances 
 of political life, a ministry will be found ready to 
 adopt a measure which will settle the Irish university 
 question without offending English prejudice. Possibly, 
 according to the plan suggested by Mr. Lowe, the re¬ 
 venues of Trinity College may be applied to the founding 
 of exhibitions, to be awarded by a Government board—or 
 in some scheme of a comprehensive university Trinity 
 College may be suffered to retain the place of one of the 
 petty schools that will supply candidates for degrees to 
 an examining body in Dublin Castle. But, I repeat;, 
 that once tell the Catholic people of Ireland that there 
 is no hope of their admission into university institutions, 
 and the existence of anything in Ireland that could de¬ 
 serve the name of University Education is not far from its 
 end. The system that is built upon any basis less 
 broad than the welfare of the whole people is a house 
 that has its foundation in the sand, it will not survive 
 the storms and gusts of political excitement and passion, 
 “ when the rains descend, and the floods come, and the 
 winds blow, and beat upon that house, it will fall, and 
 great will be the fall thereof.” 
 
 I feel that in making these suggestions I have 
 wandered far beyond any limits I had assigned to myself 
 when I began to write. I know not whether they will 
 be acted on or not. But I feel confident that it only needs 
 
18 
 
 rightly directed efforts to obtain, in some form or other, 
 a settlement of this question in such a manner as will 
 satisfy the just demands of the Catholic people. But if 
 it be not so, if these exertions be not made, or if made 
 they are unsuccessful, I have the satisfaction of feeling 
 that in endeavouring to obtain such a settlement I have 
 borne my part, and that whatever is to be the result of an 
 unwise refusal of the earnest entreaty of a nation for 
 institutions in which their children could be educated, 
 without compromising their conscientious convictions, I 
 have no share in the responsibility of that refusal, or of 
 consequences which I have earnestly striven to avert. 
 
 I. B. 
 
 Dublin , October 31st, 1877. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 SIR, 
 
 In moving the second reading of this Bill I believe it will 
 he more convenient for the House that I should accompany the 
 motion by a statement, not only of the leading features of the 
 measure, but also of the principles and views with which it has 
 been framed. It will be in the recollection of the House, that 
 last year I introduced a Bill on this subject, containing similar 
 provisions. I then made a statement of the nature of those 
 provisions. * The Bill, of which I now propose the second read¬ 
 ing, is essentially the same as that of last year. There have been 
 modifications in some of its provisions. Early in the present 
 year a conference took place between myself and my friends, the 
 member for Galway and the member for Mallow, and four 
 prelates of the Roman Catholic Church. My friend the mem¬ 
 ber for Roscommon, and my friend the member for Louth, who 
 have placed their names with mine at the back of the Bill, were 
 unable to attend that conference. The four prelates who were 
 present were the Archbishop of Armagh (the Primate), the Arch¬ 
 bishop of Cashel, the Bishop of Ardagh, and the Bishop of 
 Killala. In consequence of that conference some modifications 
 have been made, to which, when I state the provisions of the 
 Bill, I will call the attention of the House. But still, sir, this 
 Bill is my own. I last year carefully prepared it, after asking 
 for information from all those who I thought would be most 
 likely to enable me to form a correct judgment upon the feelings 
 and opinions of those for whose benefit it was intended. The 
 chief characteristic is that it provides, or endeavours to provide, 
 for the defect that everyone admits to exist in the University 
 Institutions of Ireland, by establishing and endowing a second 
 college in the University of Dublin; but I feel also that the 
 
16 
 
 question comes now in a different way before the House from 
 that in which I was able to present it last year. It is quite true 
 that there has been no formal acceptance of this Bill by the 
 Roman Catholic hierarchy, but yet, sir, when we find that 
 petitions have come from the people of Ireland, signed by more 
 than 112,000 persons, with the assent of the Roman Catholic 
 clergy, I think we may assume that the 61 members of Parlia¬ 
 ment who signed a requisition on the subject to the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer,* were well warranted in stating that they had 
 every reason to believe that this Bill would give satisfaction to 
 the Irish people, and would be accepted by the Roman Catholic 
 prelates—an impression, sir, which, so far as I myself and my 
 friends are concerned, was more than borne out by the con* 
 ference in which we took a part. I am far from saying that 
 this is a Bill which the Roman Catholic hierarchy would frame 
 if they had the power of legislating on the subject. No collec¬ 
 tive opinion has been pronounced, and I have therefore no 
 authority to speak for the hierarchy. I know that there are 
 some of them who would prefer a separate Roman Catholic 
 University to a second college, but I have better authority than 
 any mere verbal conversations for stating that they are ready to 
 accept the institution of a second college in the University of 
 Dublin, provided that second college is formed in accordance 
 with the just claims of the Catholic people. In 1871 a pastoral 
 was issued to the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, which was 
 signed by all the Roman Catholic prelates, and in that pastoral, 
 after stating the points which they considered necessary to be 
 observed in any university institution intended for the Catholic 
 people, they thus express themselves :— 
 
 “ All this can, we believe, be attained by modifying the con¬ 
 stitution of the Dublin University, so as to admit of the establish¬ 
 ment of a second college within it, in every respect equal to 
 Trinity College, and conducted on purely Catholic principles, in 
 which your bishops shall have full control in all things regarding 
 
 See Appendix C. 
 
17 
 
 faith and morals, securing thereby the spiritual interests of your 
 children, placing at the same time Catholics on a perfect equality 
 with Protestants, as to degrees, emoluments, and other advan¬ 
 tages.” 
 
 Now, sir, what I ask the House to do in reading this Bill a 
 second time is not to sanction every detail in which I have 
 endeavoured to meet this proposal of the bishops, but only to 
 assent to the principle that we should endeavour to meet it. It 
 would be great presumption in me to say that I have succeeded in 
 framing a plan by which all the difficulties that surround such 
 an attempt had been overcome, but I can sincerely say that I am 
 not without hopes that if you sanction the principle, and that if 
 either the Ministry by a Royal commission, or this House by 
 a select committee, endeavour honestly and fairly to collect the 
 opinions and to meet the views of all those who must be consulted 
 on such a measure, and if all parties in Ireland will act with 
 forbearance and moderation, a measure may be framed upon 
 the lines of that which I introduce which will give satisfaction 
 to the Irish nation. 
 
 Before I proceed further, I trust the House will permit me to 
 say one word upon a subject upon which I cannot say more. I 
 would ask of every member of this House, whatever exaspera¬ 
 tion he may feel at any occurrences that have taken place, 
 not to visit that upon this measure, but to deal with it upon the 
 broad and great principles upon which such a measure should 
 be decided. No greater calamity could befall this House than 
 if any feelings of resentment at the conduct of individuals were 
 to influence their vote upon a question which concerns not 
 individuals but a nation. 
 
 In approaching this question we must first consider the 
 amount of revenue derived from State endowments which is 
 now applied to the purposes of university education in Ireland. 
 Ireland has two universities—the Dublin University, composed 
 only of Trinity College, and the Queen’s University, instituted 
 in 1845, with its three Colleges at Cork, Galway, and Belfast. 
 To use a phrase which I find commonly employed in the report 
 
18 
 
 of the English University Commissioners, the “ external 
 income ”—meaning that derived from endowments and not from 
 students’ fees—at Trinity College does not much exceed £40,000 
 a year. In 1854 a Eoyal commission estimated its external in¬ 
 come at £38,000 a year. A return of the member for Longford 
 fixes it as high as £43,000. I am not concerned to account for 
 the difference. I believe that in the last return there is included 
 the annual produce of a sum paid to the college in compensa¬ 
 tion for the loss of ecclesiastical advowsons. Possibly there are 
 also included in it an annual income of £2,000 derived from a 
 gift of an estate by the Corporation of Dublin at the foundation 
 of the college, and about an equal sum derived from an estate 
 left to them by Provost Baldwin—neither of which may, 
 perhaps, be properly called State endowments. But it is enough 
 for me to say that at no time has the revenue derived from State 
 endowments of Trinity College amounted to £45,000, even 
 including an estate yielding about £1,000 a year, which has been 
 left separately to the Provost. The Queen’s Colleges have each 
 £7,000 a year settled on the Consolidated Fund. That is beyond 
 the control of this House. This year we have voted in the esti¬ 
 mates for the Queen’s University £4,634, for the colleges £11,800; 
 but of this latter sum about £6,000 is repaid by fees collected from 
 pupils, and which, under an arrangement with the Treasury, are 
 paid into the public exchequer. This, therefore, would leave the 
 grant voted this year for the Queen’s University, including its col¬ 
 leges, at something about £10,000. In addition to thisthere is a 
 small vote for the repairs and maintenance of buildings in the 
 colleges the expense of which is borne by the public exchequer. 
 
 This would leave the sum derived from public sources for 
 university institutions in Ireland thus:—For Trinity College, 
 derived from endowments in land, £43,000 a year; for the 
 Queen’s University and the colleges composing it, £21,000, 
 settled by act of Parliament, and £10,000 voted on the estimates, 
 making the endowment of the Dublin University £43,000, and 
 of the Queen’s Colleges £33,000, or altogether, £76,000. It 
 will perhaps have. surprised lion, members, some of whom have 
 talked of the enormous wealth of Trinity College, to be told 
 
19 
 
 that tlie University of Dublin has only £10,000 a year more 
 of endowment than the Queen’s University and its colleges. 
 
 Now, I will ask the House for a moment to contrast this 
 with the state of things existing in England. We have voted this 
 year for the London University a sum of £10,670, a little more 
 than we have voted for the Queen’s University in Ireland. But 
 if we look to the elder universities we there see a remarkable 
 contrast. I need not say, sir, that Trinity College has all the 
 powers and bears all the expenses of a university. Its income, 
 therefore, is not to be treated as that of a college. The Uni¬ 
 versity of Oxford has, in its separate capacity as a university, 
 an endowment producing £29,000; the external income of its 
 colleges and halls derived from lands amounts to £307,000 a 
 year—making a total income of £335,000. The external income 
 of Cambridge University amounts to £13,000 ; that of its colleges 
 and halls to £264,000—making a total income to Cambridge 
 University of £277,000. The united income of the two English 
 universities derived from endowments amounts to £613,000 a year. 
 That is in contrast with the income of £43,000 enjoyed by the 
 University of Dublin, which of late years has been supplemented 
 by £30,000 a year voted to the Queen’s Colleges, It is right to 
 .observe that as a means of making provision for their fellows, 
 Oxford University has benefices in the gift, either of the Uni¬ 
 versity or its colleges, the annual income of which is £137,000, 
 .and Cambridge has benefices with an annual income of £135,000. 
 
 I might, sir, be tempted to stop and show what Trinity College has 
 done for many generations on an endowment that never amounted 
 in any year to £40,000, and how it maintained an honourable 
 competition of which no Irishman need feel ashamed, with the two 
 great English universities endowed with more than £600,000 a 
 year ! But I would use the contrast, as supplying me with an 
 unanswerable argument in favour of the proposal which this , 
 Bill makes, that out of a fund, that in fact, represents the 
 endowments provided by our ancestors in ancient times—I mean 
 the surplus of the property of the Disestablished Church— 
 provision should be made for the absolute necessities of Irish 
 University Education. 
 
20 
 
 Now let me ask tlie attention of the House to the state 
 of things that actually exists in Ireland. From the benefit 
 of university institutions the great mass of the people are 
 practically excluded; and I may observe in passing that in 
 addition to these university endowments there are in Ireland 
 some small endowments for intermediate schools, but including 
 these in the observation that I make, there is not in the whole of 
 Ireland, from one end of it to the other, a single endowed 
 educational institution in accordance with the convictions and 
 religious belief of the Irish people. I cannot, perhaps, express 
 this better than by quoting the words in which it was stated by 
 the right hon. gentleman the member for Greenwich, then 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech delivered by him at 
 Southport on the 19th December, 1867 :— 
 
 “At the present moment no university degree can be 
 granted in Ireland except in Trinity College, Dublin, where 
 the system of the Established Church is taught, and in the 
 Queen’s Colleges and various places where no system of religion 
 is taught at all as a part of the system of education; and if 
 there be Eoman Catholics—and there are numbers of them— 
 who hold in Ireland the very same opinion that we hold in 
 England—viz., to prefer having their children trained in estab¬ 
 lishments where their own religion is taught, these children are 
 deprived from the privilege of a university degree, and as that 
 degree is a civil privilege, it comes to this—that there are still 
 in Ireland civil disabilities on account of religious opinion. Now, 
 we would not bear that ourselves.” 
 
 Now, sir, when I have said that there is not an educational 
 institution in Ireland receiving a State endowment which is in 
 accordance with the religious convictions and belief of the Irish 
 people, I have stated a national grievance of no ordinary kind. 
 You have endowed institutions founded on principles adverse to 
 those convictions and that belief. You have institutions like 
 your endowed schools and like Trinity College, essentially 
 Protestant in their character. You have institutions like the 
 
21 
 
 Queen’s Colleges, representing a form of teaching still more 
 repulsive to the feelings of the Irish people—I mean a form that 
 altogether excludes religious teaching; hut a single institution 
 in harmony with the feelings of those who constitute the majority 
 of the people you have not. 
 
 I do not know that I ought to take up the time of the House 
 in adducing statistical proofs, but the result is that a very small 
 proportion of Roman Catholics avail themselves of University 
 Education in Ireland. I have no wish to enter into any contro¬ 
 versy as to the Queen’s Colleges, but every one knows that they 
 have failed in attracting to them Roman Catholic students. I 
 will take the total number attending lectures in the three Queen’s 
 Colleges in the sessions of 1875 and 1876, as I find them in 
 the last reports of those colleges. In October, 1876, Galway 
 had 156 students, of whom 82 were Roman Catholics; Cork 
 had 250, of whom 131 were Roman Catholics; and Belfast 
 398, of whom 11 were Roman Catholics—making in all 224 
 Roman Catholics attending in that year lectures in those three 
 colleges. At the end of 1874 I find a statement contained in 
 the report of the President of the Belfast College that the 
 total number attending lectures in the three colleges was 781, of 
 whom 217 were Roman Catholics. But, sir, I quite agree with a 
 remark which was made by the right hon. gentleman, the mem¬ 
 ber for Greenwich, in 1873, that the larger proportion of those 
 attending the lectures at the Queen’s Colleges are not at¬ 
 tending them for the purpose of University Education in its 
 proper sense, but to acquire technical or professional knowledge. 
 The schools of medicine, of engineering, and of law, do not 
 represent persons who come for the purpose of University train¬ 
 ing. It is only the faculty of arts that we ought to consider in 
 estimating the number of persons really coming for University 
 Education. In Belfast, at the end of 1876, there were only 
 119 students in the Faculty of Arts ; in Cork, 51 ; and in Gal¬ 
 way, 53. About one-third of the entire number of students were 
 matriculated in the Faculty of Arts. We have 223 students in 
 all the three colleges matriculated in arts. How many of those 
 are Roman Catholics ? Let us assume that in those 223 the 
 
proportion of Roman Catholics is the same as it is in the entire 
 hody of the students. You have 70 Roman Catholics matricu¬ 
 lated in arts—that is only 70 really university students belonging 
 to the Roman Catholic Church. And I believe this is the 
 real proportion of Roman Catholic students in the Queen’s 
 Colleges. To this, however, we must add the Roman Catholics 
 who are receiving their education in the University of Dublin. 
 Mr. Gladstone, in his speech in this House in 1873, estimated 
 the number of tliese at 100. It is, of course, easy to attain the 
 exact number, but I should be disposed to fix them at 70. # But 
 even taking them at 100, we have of the whole Roman Catholic 
 population of Ireland but 170 availing themselves of university 
 education—a number so disproportioned to the Roman Catholic 
 population as to prove in itself that our university institutions 
 are vitally defective. 
 
 But, sir, this is not a religious but a national grievance. If 
 we add to the 223 students in arts in the Queen’s University 
 all that have matriculated in Dublin, we have not altogether 
 more than 1,100 persons in Ireland seeking for university educa¬ 
 tion. This is a number which shows that a large proportion of 
 the people of Ireland do not receive the benefits of a university 
 education who might be expected to do so. 
 
 Let me stop for a moment to observe that no matter how it 
 was intended no delusion could be more gross than that 
 which would imagine that anything like religious equality had 
 
 * Since this speech was delivered I obtained an order for returns, both 
 from Trinity College and the Queen’s University which would accurately repre¬ 
 sent the number of Roman Catholic students in each of those institutions. 
 
 That from Trinity College has been some time printed. It appears that 
 the number of Roman Catholic students on the books of Trinity College 
 amounts to 75. 
 
 Of these 12 are resident within the College walls. 
 
 In the last ten years 105 Roman Catholics have taken the degree of 
 Bachelor of Arts. 
 
 In the five years that have elapsed since the passing of “ Mr. Fawcett’s 
 Bill,” four Roman Catholics have been admitted to scholarships. 
 
 As the entire number of 70 scholarships fall vacant in the ordinary 
 course within five years, four out of seventy may be considered as the 
 nominal proportions of Roman Catholic scholars. 
 
 The returns will be found in the appendix. For some reason or other 
 the return for the Queen’s Colleges has not yet been printed. 
 
23 
 
 teen established in Trinity College by the bill which bears, 
 the name of the member for Hackney. That college is 
 still essentially a Protestant institution. There is a college 
 chapel in which Divine worship is conducted according to the 
 rites of the Protestant Church. There is no building in which 
 it is celebrated according to the Ptoman Catholic form. There 
 are 70 scholarships in Trinity College, and since the passing of 
 that Bill three of those scholarships have been obtained by 
 Roman Catholics. If, indeed, any of those things which would 
 establish religious equality were to happen—if there were 
 Roman Catholic fellows equal in number to the Protestant— 
 if Mass were celebrated in a building set apart for that purpose ; 
 if a Roman Catholic ecclesiastic or even a Roman Catholic 
 layman were nominated Provost, I am quite sure that the effect 
 would be that Protestants would leave Trinity College, and it 
 would become utterly unsuited for the purposes of a Protestant 
 university education. But none of these things have happened, 
 and none of them will happen in the present generation, and 
 while the youngest of us is alive Trinity College under its pre¬ 
 sent constitution will continue a Protestant institution. 
 
 I think I have gone far enough to show that if you want to 
 supply the opportunities of university education to the whole 
 Irish people, some new element must be introduced. This 
 is a social as well as a religious and national grievance. If 
 there be anything in university education it must give the 
 man who receives it some advantage in social life. It was 
 only when I began to study the question and to collect in¬ 
 formation on the subject that I perfectly understood the un¬ 
 fair advantage which our present educational arrangements give 
 to the Protestant. In every department of life he has an 
 advantage. He has the means of education supplied by the 
 State which are not open to the Roman Catholic. This consti¬ 
 tutes a religious ascendancy of the very worst kind, because it 
 rests upon condemning a large proportion of the people to 
 inferiority of education. 
 
 Now, how are we to remedy this ? We can do it in 
 one of two ways—either by creating a separate Catholic 
 
24 
 
 University, or by establishing a second college in the Dublin 
 University suited to meet the wants and the wishes of the 
 Catholic people. I myself, sir, am an advocate tor the second 
 college. A long time must elapse before any new university, 
 however well and wisely conducted, could acquire for its degrees 
 the prestige which belongs to those of the elder university. 
 That university has many great traditions and many proud 
 recollections. The names of Grattan, of Burke, of Curran, 
 of most of the men whose names have become household 
 words in Irish history are connected with it. I wish to make 
 our Roman Catholic countrymen sharers in all those traditions— 
 traditions which we have acquired as a national university, and 
 in which, therefore, they have a right to share. 
 
 But in introducing this Bill in this shape, permit me to restate 
 the position which I occupy. I brought in this Bill on my own 
 responsibility—a responsibility shared only with the friends who 
 allowed me to associate their names with mine in introducing it. 
 
 I brought it in as a member of this House, as a member of the 
 Senate of the Dublin University. I wished for a second college for 
 the sake of the university itself—for the sake of the Protestants of 
 Ireland—for the sake of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. I preferred 
 this to the establishment of a separate university. I think the great 
 principles on which such a bill ought to be founded are these : To 
 give the Roman Catholics a college in which they can receive edu¬ 
 cation according to their convictions; and it is vain to disguise from 
 ourselves that this involves the giving to the Roman Catholic 
 bishops as much control as the Catholic people of Ireland believe 
 their religion requires that they should have. Another principle 
 must be to place Roman Catholics practically on an equality with 
 Protestants in endowments, and, as far as possible, in the prestige 
 that should belong to the degrees they would obtain. But there 
 are other objects also to be kept in view. We are not to impair 
 the efficiency of Trinity College as an institution for the education 
 of Protestants. We are not to lower the standard of university 
 education ; nor are we to place university education under that 
 Government control which has been fatal to every university 
 system over which it has thrown its withering shadow. 
 
25 
 
 Let me in the first place advert to the declaration of the 
 Roman Catholic prelatesjn 1871 to which I have already referred. 
 They then stated what they considered requisite for the higher 
 education of the country. I am quoting from a pastoral which, 
 as I have said, they all signed in 1871 :— 
 
 “ As regards higher education (we repeat the words of the 
 resolutions adopted by the archbishops and bishops of Ireland in 
 August, 1869), since the Protestants of this country have had a 
 Protestant University, with rich endowments, for 300 years, and 
 have so still, the Catholic people of Ireland equally have a right 
 to a Catholic University. But should her Majesty’s Government 
 be unwilling to increase the number of universities in this 
 country, religious equality cannot be realised unless the degrees, 
 endowments, and other privileges enjoyed by our fellow-subjects 
 of a different religion be placed within reach of Catholics on terms 
 of perfect equality. The injustice of denying to us a participation 
 in those advantages, except at the cost of principle and con¬ 
 science, is aggravated by the consideration, that whilst we con¬ 
 tribute our share to the public funds for the support of educa¬ 
 tional institutions from which conscience warns us away, we 
 have, moreover, to tax ourselves for the education of our children 
 in our own colleges and universities. Should it please her 
 Majesty’s Government, therefore, to remove the many grievances 
 to which Catholics are subjected by existing university arrange¬ 
 ments, and to establish one national university in this kingdom 
 for examining candidates and conferring degrees, the Catholic 
 people of Ireland are entitled in justice to demand that in such 
 university or annexed to it they shall have one or more colleges 
 conducted upon purely Catholic principles, and at the same time 
 fully participating in the privileges enjoyed by other colleges of 
 whatsoever denomination or character; that the university 
 honours and emoluments be accessible to Catholics equally with 
 their Protestant fellow-subjects ; that the examinations and all 
 other details of university arrangement be free from every in¬ 
 fluence hostile to the religious sentiments of Catholics; and that 
 with this view the Catholic element be adequately represented 
 
26 
 
 upon the senate or other supreme university body by persons 
 enjoying the confidence of the Catholic bishops, priests, and 
 people of Ireland.” 
 
 I cannot think that those requisitions were unreasonable ; 
 they were followed up by the passage I have already quoted, in 
 which the prelates stated their belief that they could all be satis¬ 
 fied by the establishment of a second college in the University 
 of Dublin. 
 
 When we come to consider the mode of establishing a second 
 college, we cannot overlook the fact that we already have an 
 institution founded by Catholics—founded and supported by 
 Catholic liberality, acknowledged by the Catholic people as 
 worthy of their support, and endeavouring under extreme cir¬ 
 cumstances to supply to that people the benefits of a higher 
 education—I mean, of course, the institution known as the 
 Catholic University. It has been several years in existence. 
 The Commissioners of Science and Art reported, two or three 
 years ago, that £200,000 had been subscribed, by the Catholic 
 people in support of the institution. No doubt a large pro¬ 
 portion of this has been expended in the annual support of 
 the institution, but a portion still remains available in its 
 buildings and other property. That institution enjoys the 
 good-will and confidence of the Irish Catholic people. It 
 is not easy to convey to members of this assembly the exact 
 position which it occupies in Ireland. I can only say that it 
 has among its professors men of the highest eminence in 
 several of the walks of science. It has won the respect of 
 all classes, including the leading men of Trinity College, 
 and many interchanges of civility attest the readiness on the 
 part of Trinity College to acknowledge it among the new 
 institutions of the country. 
 
 It is too common to impute to Boman Catholic education 
 a tendency to restrain the freedom of thought. The Catholic 
 University has an historical and literary society, in which 
 topics—as in the kindred institutions of other universities— 
 are freely discussed. It has been frequently my lot to be 
 
27 
 
 present at the opening meetings of the society, where the 
 president delivered an inaugural address, and I believe there is no 
 one who has been present on those occasions who would not 
 hear me out in saying that nowhere has there been displayed 
 more perfect freedom and liberality of thought and reasoning 
 than in the addresses to which we have had the good fortune to 
 listen ; and, I must add, sir, that among the men educated at 
 that Catholic University I have found as true liberality of thought, 
 as entire an absence of sectarianism and bigotry, and a tone of 
 thought as free and enlarged as I have met with among any 
 class with whom I am acquainted. I believe it would be the 
 extreme of folly that could induce us to disregard the claims of 
 this institution, to be accepted as possessing all the attri¬ 
 butes which fit it—eminently fit it to be a college, representing 
 Catholic thought and intellect in the University of Dublin. I 
 therefore, sir, propose in this Bill to offer to the chiefs of that 
 institution the option of a charter and incorporation as a second 
 college in the University of Dublin. I do not propose to affiliate 
 any other seminary or institution with the University. I pro¬ 
 pose that Trinity College and this Catholic College should at 
 present constitute the sole members of the University, and 
 while the Bill provides for new colleges that may be founded in 
 future times, it enacts that all those colleges should be situated 
 within a short distance of the centre of Dublin. I have no 
 wish to discuss the Bill which was introduced in 1873, by the 
 right hon. gentleman the member for Greenwich. I am quite 
 ready to do justice to the liberality of sentiment which marked 
 the framing of that Bill. I believe that it was dictated by a 
 sincere desire to do justice to the Irish people in this vital 
 matter of university education, and I do not stop now to inquire 
 into the causes of its failure. But I cannot help remarking 
 that I believe the attempt to affiliate to the University in Dublin 
 a number of seminaries in the country was one of the causes of 
 that failure, because it was felt by every Irishman that this must 
 have the effect of lowering the standard of university education. 
 That I am not speaking this without reason I think I can satisfy 
 the House. The opinion of the Catholic laity was against that 
 
28 
 
 proposal. I hope the House will pardon me if I refer to an 
 address which was presented a short time ago to myself by a 
 large number of the professors and students and ex-students of 
 the Catholic University. In that address they pointed out the 
 preference which they give to the Bill I have framed, because it 
 did not lower the standard of university education in Ireland. 
 Speaking of Mr. Gladstone’s Bill, they say— 
 
 “ That it proposed to associate with Trinity College, under 
 the Dublin University, not a great institution, which might act 
 as an intellectual centre for the Catholics of Ireland, and which 
 might afford them some hope of recovering the reputation which 
 Catholic Ireland once possessed for learning. Instead of giving 
 a centre of Catholic thought, it would have tacked on to the 
 University of Dublin a number of schools and seminaries 
 scattered throughout the country, amongst which company 
 the Catholic University was admitted without one penny of 
 endowment, without any one special advantage, without any 
 one distinguishing characteristic, which could enable it as 
 the heart of the Irish Catholic educational system to diffuse 
 life and vigour throughout the members of that system.” 
 
 And they added that had that Bill passed, 
 
 “A central examining board—a weak resemblance of the 
 London University—the Catholics of Ireland might thenceforth 
 have had; but university education in the true and high sense 
 of the term they never could have hoped for.” 
 
 And they contrast with this the Bill which I have introduced 
 by saying that my proposal, 
 
 “ Is not to drag the Catholic University and a great college 
 into an ill-assorted union with a number of smaller seminaries 
 scattered throughout the country—a union which might be able 
 to degrade the college to the level of a seminary, but which never 
 could elevate a seminary to the standard of a college.” 
 
29 
 
 I have ventured to quote these sentences as indicating what 
 I believe to be the general opinion of the educated Catholic 
 laity. They desire that the standard of university education 
 should be maintained, and that whatever be the collegiate or 
 university institution, that would give them justice in the matter 
 of higher education, it should in its requirements be upon a 
 level with the old established universities of the kingdom. 
 
 I come now, sir, to explain the proposals this Bill makes as 
 to the constitution and government of the two colleges which I 
 propose to bring together in the University. The Catholic Uni¬ 
 versity is at present largely under the control of twelve of the 
 Boman Catholic bishops of Ireland. It is proposed to preserve that 
 body, under the title of Committee of Founders—a title which 
 simply records a fact. But, sir, in almost all the powers which 
 they are to exercise it is proposed that there are to be associated 
 with them twelve laymen. The twelve bishops and the twelve 
 associated laymen are to form a body to be called the Senate 
 of the College. The first twelve laymen are to be named in the 
 Bill, and in future vacancies among those laymen are to be filled 
 up alternately by an election by the graduates of the college 
 and of the senate This addition of laymen to the council of 
 bishops was suggested by the prelates who met myself and my 
 friends in the conference which I have already mentioned. 
 
 In addition to the Senate there is to be a collegiate council, 
 consisting of twelve, four to be nominated by the senate, four by 
 the professors of the college, and four by the graduates. The 
 graduates are to assemble in a separate body, to be called 
 the congregation of graduates. These three bodies—the senate, 
 composed as I have described, the collegiate council, and the 
 congregation of graduates, are to constitute the governing bodies 
 of the Catholic College. The professors, who are to hold their 
 office for life, or during good behaviour, are to be elected in this 
 way—three names are to be recommended by the collegiate 
 council, of whom the senate is to choose one. The power 
 of making ordinances on certain subjects connected with the 
 discipline and arrangements of the college is intrusted to the 
 senate; other matters are to be regulated by the collegiate 
 
30 
 
 council; but it is provided that no change can he made in 
 any regulation contained in the act, without the assent of the 
 Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council of Ireland. 
 
 These, sir, are the outlines of the mode in which we pro¬ 
 pose that the new Catholic College should be constituted. It is, 
 I think, a subject which ought to be left greatly to the Eoman 
 Catholic people themselves. I believe that the mode in which 
 we propose that the government of the college should be ar¬ 
 ranged would be found such as will meet with their approba¬ 
 tion. But I cannot too often or too strongly repeat that I do 
 not rest this Bill either on this point or any other point upon a 
 perfect agreement on its details. I am bold to say, sir, that I 
 have framed a measure which proves the possibility of uniting 
 in one university a Protestant and a Catholic College. I have 
 prepared rules for the government of the Catholic College, to 
 which I do not think this House, if it is really prepared to deal 
 with this subject on the principle of religious toleration, can 
 object. But all the details of that plan are open to discussion 
 and amendment. You will only have to take care that in 
 amending it you do not destroy the Catholic character of the 
 proposed college, so as to unfit it for the education of Catholics. 
 I may observe that in respect to this the liberty of the Catholics 
 is fully protected. Under this Bill no institution hostile to their 
 convictions can ever be established. It rests with the govern¬ 
 ing body of the Catholic University to accept or reject the 
 charter which will be offered to them under this measure in the 
 shape in wdiicli it will ultimately pass. 
 
 So much as to the Catholic College. As to Trinity College 
 I have very little to say. The management is still left in 
 the hands of the Provost and Senior Fellows—of an academic 
 council, elected in the same manner as at present—and of 
 a congregation of graduates substituted for convocation. As, 
 of course, in future the graduates of the other college would 
 become members of the convocation of the university, a congre¬ 
 gation exclusively composed of the graduates of Trinity College 
 must be substituted for convocation in the powers that are to be 
 exercised over the arrangements of the college itself. 
 
31 
 
 The University of Dublin would remain as at present, with 
 a vice-chancellor elected by convocation, and with the addi¬ 
 tion of an academic or university council—composed of seven per¬ 
 sons to be selected by the governing body of each college, two 
 more by the graduates of Trinity College, and two by those of the 
 new college. These eighteen persons, with the chancellor and 
 vice-chancellor, I propose should constitute the academic council; 
 and to the council I largely intrust the ordinary manage¬ 
 ment of university examinations and other matters relating 
 to the daily life, I may say, of the University. Statutes of 
 the University are only to be made with the assent of the 
 academic council and of convocation, and no statute can be 
 made unless it had obtained the assent both of the Provost and 
 Senior Fellows of Trinity College and of the Senate of the 
 Catholic College. No one I think can say that this is un¬ 
 reasonable or unfair. The terms upon which the two colleges 
 combine in one university may fairly be considered as a con¬ 
 tract which ought not to be altered without the consent of both. 
 
 I now come to state the provisions which the Bill contains 
 as to the mode of obtaining degrees. It is substantially that in 
 force at present both by the University of Dublin and the 
 Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. I propose that degrees 
 should be conferred as at present by the convocation of the 
 university, comprising all graduates of the higher degrees, and 
 conferred by that convocation with all the forms and observances 
 hitherto in use. The degree of Bachelor of Arts is to be ob¬ 
 tained as it is now, after the candidate has passed four years in 
 one of the colleges, attending lectures, and complying with all 
 the regulations which his college may (t make. During this 
 period he would be required to pass two university examinations: 
 one at the end of two years and the other when he offers himself 
 as candidate for his degree. These university examinations are to 
 be conducted by a board of examiners, appointed by the academic 
 council, and in the Bill itself the course to be used at these exa¬ 
 minations is prescribed. It may seem an unusual thing to 
 include in the Bill the university course of examination which 
 should qualify a person for a degree, but there are reasons which 
 
32 
 
 make it expedient to do so when you are combining two different 
 colleges in one university. Perhaps it will surprise some mem¬ 
 bers to be told that in the course there is to be found provision 
 for examination both in history and moral philosophy. As to the 
 qualification for the lower degrees, I will not detain the House 
 by pointing out the subjects which by the Bill are made necessary 
 for passing the university examinations, and also prescribed as 
 subjects to be taught in the colleges ; but, I venture to say, that if 
 anyone will take the trouble of looking over the schedule to the 
 Bill he will admit that the course of study prescribed for the 
 students is such as in no degree to lower the standard of university 
 education in Ireland, and is in liberality and completeness equal 
 to the requirements of any university in the United Kingdom, 
 and I am also sure that the more any one examines it the more 
 convinced he will be that the apprehension that Catholics will 
 resist the introduction of the highest branches of human 
 knowledge is a groundless one, especially when he learns how 
 many of the books mentioned in that schedule have been taken 
 from the course prescribed by the Catholic University. It will 
 be remembered that the table of university studies may at any 
 time be altered with the consent of both colleges, and that either 
 college may of its own authority add to that table any books or 
 subjects it thinks fit to appoint for its own students. 
 
 As for the higher degrees they are left under the control of the 
 University. The Bill leaves to the University of Dublin all the 
 powers it now possesses of granting degrees, with the exception 
 of degrees in divinity, but it authorises each college to grant a di¬ 
 ploma conferring the title of D.D.—a diploma, however, which 
 would confer no university right. I ought to have mentioned 
 that there is a provision that the council of bishops may appoint 
 in the Catholic college professors of divinity—as professors of 
 divinity exist in Trinity College ; but there is also a provision 
 that none of the revenues conferred upon the college by the act 
 should be applied to payment of such professors, and to prevent 
 the same thing being done indirectly there is a provision that 
 no theological professor should hold any other office or pro¬ 
 fessorship in the college. This has recalled my attention to a 
 
33 
 
 statement which I have omitted to make in its proper place, I 
 trust the House will permit me now to supply the omission. 
 A provision has been introduced this year into the Bill, that 
 the vice-chancellor, instead of being appointed at the absolute 
 discretion of the chancellor, should be selected from three names 
 to be furnished to him alternately by each college, the vice¬ 
 chancellorship to be held for a period of three years. 
 
 With respect, however, to the obtaining of degrees, I ask 
 the particular attention of the House to a provision to which I 
 attach the greatest value. The House will permit me fully to 
 explain this. It always has been the habit of the University 
 of Dublin to allow persons to obtain degrees by passing certain 
 examinations in the year, without residence, and without attend¬ 
 ing lectures. The Bill proposes to continue this. Recently students 
 have been admitted into the English universities without entering 
 any college; and it is proposed to adopt this plan in the Irish uni¬ 
 versity, so that any student who does not desire to enter either of 
 the colleges might matriculate as a member of the university, 
 without residence or attendance on lectures at either college. By 
 these means any person who acquires the requisite knowledge 
 may obtain his degree, receiving his education in any place he 
 thought fit, or educating himself—the only requisite being that he 
 would prove that he was following the university course by 
 regular attendance at examinations; and that in addition to this he 
 should be able to pass the two University examinations, to which 
 persons receiving their education in the two colleges would be sub¬ 
 jected. I will not dwell upon the advantages of this. In opening the 
 advantages of the university to persons who do not choose to 
 become members of either the Catholic or Protestant College, it 
 makes education free. Every one is offered the benefit of an 
 education with which religion is combined ; but no one is compelled 
 to accept it. In the next place, it would have the effect of 
 enabling young men to obtain a university degree whose parents 
 may not be able to afford the expense of collegiate residence ; 
 and further, it would be the introduction of a wholesome element 
 of competition with the colleges, for unless the advantages afforded 
 by the two colleges was such as to make it worth the while of the 
 
34 
 
 student to undergo the expense and inconvenience of collegiate 
 residence, it is obvious that many at all events would avail them¬ 
 selves of the privilege. Persons, in fact, who from any motive 
 might have an objection to enter either of the colleges, would find 
 the means of obtaining a degree and also admission to compete for 
 all the emoluments and honours of the university without doing 
 so. Consequences will, no doubt, follow from this, upon which 
 I do not wish at present to detain the House. It is possible that 
 in a few years halls might be founded in which students belonging 
 to some j>articular denominations may find a home in the city of 
 Dublin, while proceeding to their degree in the university. I 
 ought to add that there is a provision in the Bill, that any 
 student who should matriculate in the university may avail him* 
 self at a small charge of any of the lectures given in any college* 
 Having thus briefly sketched the constitution of the colleges, 
 and of the university, I will now ask the attention of the House 
 to the endowments which this Bill proposes for them. Trinity 
 College is already endowed, as I have stated, with £43,000 a year. 
 In the Bill of 1873, it was proposed that Trinity College should 
 contribute in money a sum of £12,000 a year to maintain 
 the university. This Bill does not propose to impose any 
 pecuniary contribution upon Trinity College, but I do propose 
 that that body should contribute to the university something 
 that would be much more valuable than money. There are 
 now seventy scholarships in Trinity College, which, with rooms 
 and free commons and a small stipend, were worth about £60 
 a year each. These, of course, can now only be obtained by 
 students in Trinity College, but this, remember, is to say that 
 they are open to all students in the university. They are sought 
 after with an earnestness which their money value does not ac¬ 
 count for. The Scholarship Boll contains the names of many 
 Irishmen from Edmund Burke downwards, who had been illus¬ 
 trious in former times. The Bill proposes that those scholar¬ 
 ships should still be open to all students of the university, 
 under its enlarged institution. If one should be obtained 
 by a student who was not a member of Trinity Col¬ 
 lege it gives him the choice either of becoming a 
 
35 
 
 member of the college, or of receiving from the college an annual 
 sum equivalent to the worth of the scholarship. It would be 
 to him a grant of £60 a year for five years, during which 
 the scholarship could be held, and it is proposed that it should 
 carry with it the privilege of voting for the representatives of 
 the university, a privilege given by the first charter but reserved 
 in the Reform Bill, even for undergraduate scholars, and which 
 attaches a peculiar value to the obtaining of the honour. Again, 
 the number of fellows in Trinity College is now excessive. I pro¬ 
 pose that ten of these fellowships should be converted into univer¬ 
 sity fellowships, and that each of those ten fellows should receive 
 from Trinity College the same stipend as would be paid to him 
 if he were elected a fellow of the college. That stipend is a 
 very small one, and would, of course, not include any of the fees 
 for tuitions which he might have received as a fellow of college. 
 In addition to this stipend each of the ten fellows would be en¬ 
 titled to receive from the university revenues as much as would 
 increase his total income to £200 a year. There are also 
 professorships which are virtually university professorships, al¬ 
 though the salaries of the professors are paid out of the revenues 
 of Trinity College, which, as I have already pointed out to the 
 House, out of its endowment of £43,000 a year bears all the 
 expenses of a university as well as a college. The Bill proposes 
 that they should still be so paid, but that their nomination 
 should rest with the University Council. The professorships 
 with which it is proposed so to deal, are the Royal Professorship 
 of Astronomy, with a salary of £700 a year, independent of a 
 residence in the university and several acres of land; the 
 Regius Professor of Law, who has a salary of £500 a year; 
 the Regius Professor of Physic and Surgery, and last, but not 
 least, of Music. These five professorships would continue on 
 the college revenues a charge of more than £2,000 a year. 
 On the transfer of the fellowships, there would be another 
 annual contribution of £1,000 a year, and the surrender of 
 the seventy foundation scholarships, taking each of them at £60 
 a year, would be a money contribution of £4,200 a year, the bill 
 thus imposing on the revenues of Trinity College an annual charge 
 
36 
 
 •of £8,000. In addition to this there are fourteen studentships of 
 £100 a year each, recently founded by the hoard. It is proposed 
 that those should he open to all students of the university, 
 making a further contribution of £1,400 a year. So that in all 
 Trinity College would bestow upon the university places main¬ 
 tained out of its own revenues of the value of more than ,£9,000 
 a year. The Bill of 1873 required them to contribute in money 
 an annual sum of £12,000, which I believe would not have 
 been of the same value to the university as the places which 
 under this Bill they would bestow. In addition there are a 
 number of small prizes and medals which I propose to make 
 open to all students in the university. They are small in 
 amount, but of great value in associating the university in its 
 remodelled form with the traditions of the past. Besides this, 
 the Bill gives to the university an interest in the library, includ¬ 
 ing a magnificent collection of ancient Irish manuscripts, all of 
 which are now the exclusive property of Trinity College. 
 
 All the university places and endowments I have yet men¬ 
 tioned would be provided by the transfer of these places 
 from Trinity College to the university. It would, I believe^ 
 be more correct to say that they belong to Trinity College 
 not so much in its collegiate as in its university charac¬ 
 ter, and that in giving them to the university we areonly re¬ 
 taining them for their original purpose. If that be so, this is 
 the just and proper form in which we should make the revenues 
 of Trinity College contribute to the university under its new 
 form. But in addition to the places thus derived from Trinity 
 College the Bill proposes that provision should be made by the 
 university, independent of either of the colleges, for university 
 fellowships and scholarships. The Bill proposes that there 
 should be fifteen university fellowships, held for life, and endowed 
 each with £100a year; and the Bill also provides that there 
 should be given away every year two exhibitions of £100 a year, 
 tenable for five years. There are also exhibitions attached to 
 some of the endowed schools which it is proposed to throw open for 
 competition among all the students of the university, instead of 
 their being limited, as they were, to pupils from those schools. 
 
37 
 
 I would propose, therefore, that there should he given away the 
 following prizes and fellowships. There would be open to all its 
 graduates—25 fellowships worth £200 a year, and 10 exhibitions 
 worth £100 a year. To all its undergraduates—70 scholarships 
 worth £60, and 30 exhibitions varying from £50 to £20 a 
 year. The undergraduates’ scholarships and exhibitions would 
 be provided out of funds independent of the university, and 
 half of the expense of ten fellowships would be borne by 
 Trinity College, so that the charge upon the university revenues 
 would be 15 fellowships at £200 each, half of ten fellowships at 
 £100 a year each, and ten exhibitions at £100 a year each. 
 All those together would make an annual charge on the Uni¬ 
 versity revenues of £5,000. 
 
 But, in addition to these prizes, for those who have already 
 entered the university, I propose an application of university 
 funds to a purpose, which, if time permitted, I would be glad to 
 dwell at greater length, because I regard it as one of the most 
 valuable provisions of the measure I propose. It is an attempt 
 to give to struggling merit the aid winch may enable many a. 
 youth of promise to elevate himself to advantages to which 
 without that aid he might never have made his way. The Bill 
 provides ample securities that the aid so given shall be really 
 used for the purpose it is intended, and in reality this proposal 
 does something to redress the wants of Ireland in regard to 
 educational endowment for that which is called intermediate edu¬ 
 cation. I propose to place at the disposal of the University autho¬ 
 rities 50 exhibitions of £20 a year each, tenable for three years, to 
 be given to young men who might be desirous of fitting themselves 
 for the university, and who might require pecuniary assistance, 
 adding an expenditure of 3,000 a year, and making the total 
 charge £8,000, to be expended in the manner I have mentioned. 
 I do not think anyone would say that I ask too large an endow¬ 
 ment to enable the university to meet all these purposes, and pro¬ 
 vide for its own necessary expenses, in proposing that the Church 
 Commissioners should provide out of their surplus a sum of 
 £300,000, bearing interest at the rate of four per cent. If it 
 continued to produce the same amount of income, after providing, 
 
38 
 
 for these fellowships and prizes and the pensions in aid of poor 
 students, the university would have a sum of <£4,000 a year at its 
 disposal for all other purposes under certain restrictions which 
 I need not now particularize. I propose to leave this sum at 
 the disposal of the academic council, with, however, a provision 
 that none of it should be applied in any way except providing for 
 the ordinary expenditure of the university, except by a vote in 
 which two-thirds of the council concurred. 
 
 For the endowment of the new college I propose that as 
 soon as the charter shall be accepted the sum of <£30,000 
 should be handed over to the college to provide suitable build¬ 
 ings. It is desirable that the Irish people should manifest 
 their continued interest in the maintenance of a Catholic Uni¬ 
 versity institution, and I, therefore, propose that before any 
 other sum is handed over, the trustees of the Catholic College 
 should be able to place at the disposal of its authorities a sum 
 of <£30,000. The House would remember that nearly £200,000 
 had been already subscribed. The <£30,000 would, therefore, 
 make up £230,000 supplied by the contributions of the Catholic 
 people. Upon this being done the Bill proposes that double the 
 sum should be handed over out of the Church surplus to form a 
 permanent endowment for the new Catholic College. That would 
 make the charge on the Church surplus in all amountto <£800,000— 
 <£30,000 for buildings, £460,000 for endowment for the new 
 Catholic College, and £300,000 in endowment of the University, 
 and a grant of £30,000 tor university buildings. 
 
 I have now stated to the House the outline of the Bill, 
 omitting of course minute details which would have wearied 
 you, without enabling you better to understand the pro¬ 
 posal. The main principle of the proposal is the establishment 
 of a second college in the University of Dublin, making the 
 second college of such a character as to provide education for 
 the Catholic people in accordance with their convictions and 
 their faith, and also to offer to every Irishman the power of 
 obtaining a degree without being obliged to submit himself to any 
 peculiar instruction. Let me repeat that the latter point is se¬ 
 cured by the provision to which I have already directed attention 
 
39 
 
 of admitting persons to degrees who matriculated in the University 
 without entering either college. Both colleges the Bill makes as 
 far as possible independent and self-governing. It gives to each of 
 them the equal share in the management of the university, but leaves 
 to each college the power of making such regulations as the college 
 itself might think expedient to advance within its own walls the 
 interests of science or of education. And to leave them perfectly 
 free in this it proposes that the act prohibiting the require¬ 
 ment of religious qualifications should no longer apply to the 
 colleges, although it is retained in full force as to the university. 
 As to the regulations of the Catholic College, this is a matter 
 which we ought to leave almost entirely to the Homan Catholic 
 people themselves. As to the relations which united the two 
 colleges, they are of course a matter open to consideration, and 
 upon which it may be found possible, and even advantageous, to 
 modify some of the proposals I have made. All I ask the House 
 now to do in reading the Bill a second time is to affirm the 
 principle of the establishment of a Catholic College in the Uni¬ 
 versity of Dublin without pledging itself to any of the particular 
 details by which the measure is proposed to be carried out. 
 
 The proposal of the Catholic College is not new. Up to the year 
 1794 Catholics were not admissable into Trinity College. They 
 were excluded, first by the statutes of the College, and secondly, 
 by an Act of Parliament, which prohibited Catholics from taking 
 degrees. In that year the statutes of the College were modified 
 by Boyal authority so as to dispense in the case of Homan 
 Catholics with any observances which would interfere with their 
 religion, and in the same year the Irish Parliament repealed the 
 act which excluded them from degrees. I will ask the House 
 to remember that this was done by the exclusively Protestant 
 Parliament of Ireland long before Dissenters of any kind were 
 admitted to degrees in either of the English Universities, or even 
 to matriculate at Oxford. 
 
 But the Irish Parliament went further, and they enacted that 
 a second college might be instituted in which Catholics could hold 
 fellowships, provided that it was not exclusively for Catholics, and 
 that it was a member of the University of Dublin. I have not, 
 
40 
 
 sir, the slightest doubt that, had the Irish Parliament continued its 
 existence, this liberal measure would have been long since carried 
 out, and a second college in such a form as would then have satisfied 
 the Roman Catholics, would have been endowed out of the reve¬ 
 nues of Ireland. It is strange that now, after the lapse of eighty- 
 four years, I have still to ask of the British Parliament to carry 
 out the act of justice and liberality which the Protestant Par¬ 
 liament of Ireland had contemplated. Eleven years have passed 
 since Mr. Gladstone pronounced in favour of the establishment of a 
 Catholic College ; two generations of youths have passed into the 
 world during the interval, and all that time the British Parliament 
 has been hesitating to deal with the matter. Five years embrace 
 the period of life within which university education is usually 
 sought. In this view it may be almost said, that since that de¬ 
 claration two generations of young men have passed into the 
 battle of life, bereft of the advantages of that Catholic University 
 education which would have fitted them for its trials, and it may be, 
 trained them for its triumphs. For them, these years, which should 
 have been those of that education and that training, are gone 
 for ever, and still the British Parliament is hesitating. Is it not 
 time that this great question were settled ? A golden oppor¬ 
 tunity is presented to you. A spirit of conciliation, of concession, 
 has been manifested by the Catholic prelates and clergy of 
 Ireland; men without whose co-operation you never can settle it. 
 Will Parliament meet them in the same spirit? Deal with this sub¬ 
 ject in the spirit of a large liberajity and toleration! Remember,, 
 you have to frame university institutions for a Catholic people, 
 and banish from your minds the baneful thought which has 
 marred and destroyed so many of your best devised plans—the 
 thought, it may be unacknowledged to your minds, but always 
 present—that in framing your measures for Ireland you may do 
 something to alter or to modify the convictions of the people. 
 
 May I venture to appeal to all parties in this House to do 
 that which I have proved to be justice upon this question. There 
 are many in this House who are pledged to support religious 
 education in England. Will you deny it to Ireland ? Tell me 
 not of Protestant and Roman Catholic. You cannot give religious 
 
41 
 
 education to the Irish Protestant and deny it to the Irish Catho- 
 lie. I go further, I warn you you cannot long maintain a system 
 of higher education for Protestants while you exclude Roman 
 Catholics from a full share of its benefits ; surely we have ex¬ 
 amples enough in the history of Ireland that all institutions 
 that are based upon the exclusion of the mass of the peoifie 
 must fail. But I am speaking now of religious education. I. 
 am addressing myself to those who think with me that edu¬ 
 cational institutions ought to be based upon religion. Do 
 you wish to see Ireland handed over to a system of state 
 education from which the religious element shall be carefully 
 excluded. Believe me you have no choice between this and a 
 measure such as I propose. In denying religious education to 
 the Catholic you involve the necessity of denying it to all Irish¬ 
 men. 
 
 But may I not appeal to another party in the House, to the 
 representatives of the advanced Liberal Party that are near me— 
 a party to whom upon so many Irish questions we owe deep obliga¬ 
 tions. Why should you withdraw from us upon this ? I know that 
 your views and mine upon the subject of education are not alike.. 
 You are in favour of what is called secular education. I believe no 
 education is complete that does not train the moral and religious, 
 as well as the intellectual, nature of man. But it is not by our 
 own views we ought to decide this question. The educational 
 institutions you frame for the Irish people ought to be such as 
 the Irish people choose. I appeal to you on your own prin¬ 
 ciples of freedom, of respect for conscience. In forcing a secular 
 education on a people or an individual, there may be a violation 
 of conscience and of parental right as great and as violent as 
 any that is committed in forcing on the child a religious teach¬ 
 ing of which his parent does not approve. Pardon me for saying 
 it, there may be a bigotry of secularism as well as of religion—and 
 an intolerance in shutting out all religious teaching, as well as in 
 forcing the teaching of one religion upon all. Who is to be 
 the judge in this matter ? Who is to determine whether the 
 child is to be sent to a religious school or to one from which every 
 religious element is to be excluded ? Who is to judge as the 
 
42 
 
 child grows up to the age of higher education, whether he is to 
 receive a university teaching with which religion is to be inter¬ 
 woven, or one from which all distinctive religious teaching is to be 
 excluded ? Who, I ask you, is to he the judge, you or the father 
 of the child ? Do I ask for more than perfect toleration, for 
 perfect freedom of conscience, when 1 ask you to allow the Irish 
 Catholic parent to have the right to educate his child in the 
 manner in which his religion and his conscience tell him it is his 
 duty to educate him. He has not that right as long as you 
 deprive him of a university education, and a university degree 
 for his son, unless at the price of disobeying the dictates of his 
 conscience, and surrendering the most cherished convictions of 
 his heart. 
 
 It is to remedy this great injustice, to redress this great 
 wrong, that I appeal to-night to all parties in this House. I 
 thank you for the patience and attention with which you have 
 listened to me so long. This university question is one upon 
 which more almost than any other Irish question I feel deeply 
 and earnestly. I have proved to you that on the great mass of 
 the Irish nation your present arrangements inflict a mighty 
 wrong. It is not only the denial of education—it is that you 
 give to others that which you deny to them. You provide for 
 the Protestant educational institutions and endowments for his 
 leaching, to compete in the contests of life with the Roman 
 Catholic, who has none of these advantages. As far as your 
 legislation or your institution can do it, you establish a religious 
 ascendancy of the worst kind—the ascendancy of mental culture 
 and superior feducation. It is vain to say you have religious 
 equality while you open to the adherents of one creed the ad¬ 
 vantages of that culture and that education, which you deny to 
 those who profess the religion of the people. I look back to my 
 own early life and I remember the educational facilities which 
 were provided for me by endowments of the school to which 
 lands and revenues were attached, sufficient to attract the 
 highest teaching capacity in the land, and provide all the ap¬ 
 pliances that made that teaching effective, the university that 
 in all that constituted mental culture rivalled the proudest uni- 
 
48 
 
 versity in Christendom. Give the same advantages now to the 
 Eoman Catholic young man whose aspirations for knowledge and 
 for education, and for intellectual distinction, heat as highly and 
 as nobly as those of his Protestant companions. In the name 
 of justice, throw aside every consideration except that of placing 
 all Irishmen upon an equality in this great question without 
 inflicting upon any man civil disability on account of his 
 religious faith. Extend to the Catholic people of Ireland the 
 boon for which they earnestly pray, the blessings of an educa¬ 
 tion of which they can avail themselves, without compromising 
 their religious convictions—an education which will remove from 
 them the last mark of the inferiority to which your old policy 
 condemned them—an education which will elevate them, not 
 only among their own countrymen, but in the ranks of the nations 
 of the world. 
 
44 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 Report of the Interview between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and 
 the Deputation of the City of Dublin, on the 9th of May. 
 
 The full report of the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer can 
 scarcely be understood without the address of the members of the deputa¬ 
 tion, to which it was a reply. 
 
 From the Freeman 8 Journal , May 10th, 1877. 
 
 London, Wednesday. 
 
 This afternoon a deputation from the Dublin Corporation, consisting of 
 the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor (Alderman Tarpey), Alderman P. P. 
 M'Swiney, Alderman Harris, Alderman Fry, and Councillor Dawson, 
 waited upon Sir Stafford Northcote, at his official residence in Downing 
 Street, with reference to the question of University Education in Ireland. 
 There were also present the following members of Parliament :—Mr. Butt, 
 Mr. M‘Carthy Downing, Mr. Brooks, The O’Conor Don, Lord E. Conyng- 
 ham, Major O'G-orman, Sir Patrick O’Brien, Sir J. M’lvenna, Mr. P. Callan. 
 
 The deputation was introduced to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by 
 
 Mr. Butt, who said he had been requested to introduce the members of 
 the Dublin Corporation who were present. The Lord Mayor had come over 
 from Ireland to present a petition on the subject of University Education in 
 Ireland, and being here it was thought it would be desirable to embrace the 
 opportunity, and wait upon an influential member of the Ministry, and 
 draw attention to the strength of the feeling in Ireland with regard to the 
 question (hear, hear). The Lord Mayor had called upon Sir Stafford, who 
 had been kind enough to fix the present time for the reception of the depu¬ 
 tation. A telegram had been sent to Dublin, and four or five of the chief 
 members had come over specially to be present. The High Sheriff would 
 have come over had he not been prevented. The Right Hon. G-entleman 
 would be aware that he (Mr. Butt) had introduced a bill dealing with this, 
 question. In support of the bill a large number of petitions had been pre¬ 
 sented, numbering nearly 100,000, the figures being at present, he thought. 
 
45 
 
 93,000; and these represented a large number of people, although they 
 were in many instances signed by one individual in his official capacity. 
 The object of the present deputation was not so much to press any particu¬ 
 lar measure upon the Government as to impress upon them the fact that 
 there was in Ireland an exceedingly strong feeling with regard to this ques¬ 
 tion, aud that there was a widespread feeling that the time had come when 
 the matter should be dealt with by the Legislature (hear, hear). He might 
 further mention that a larger and larger number of Protestants were com¬ 
 ing over to this view of the question. The deputation was particularly 
 anxious to impress upon the Chanoellor of the Exchequer the importance of 
 allowing the matter to be discussed in the House of Commons on an early 
 day, otherwise great dissatisfaction would be caused. He would now intro¬ 
 duce the Lord Mayor of Dublin (hear, hear). 
 
 The Lord Mayor said, that as the leader of the House of Commons, the 
 Irish people had great confidence in Sir Stafford Northcote’s judgment and 
 impartiality, and they considered his knowledge of public affairs, and long 
 •experience as a statesman, a guarantee that the important subject which 
 had brought the deputation there would not be lost sight of (hear, hear). 
 If the measure introduced by Mr. Butt, or any similar one, were passed by 
 the Government, it would be most acceptable. He was justified in saying 
 that nine-tenths of the people of Ireland were anxious for it, and it would 
 only be a simple act of justice to let them have it. The Catholics of Ire¬ 
 land wished only for what was their right (hear, hear). The Lord Mayor 
 added that he would not delay the Right Hon. Gentleman, but merely say 
 that the Irish people hoped he would make every effort to carry the question 
 to a satisfactory issue, and they trusted confidently, when they regarded the 
 Chancellor’s past career, that this would be done. The Right Hon. Gentle¬ 
 man had doubtless seen a copy of the petition (the petition was handed to 
 Sir Stafford). This had been presented to the House. He would beg to 
 introduce Mr. Alderman M Swiney. 
 
 Alderman M‘Swiney said the subject which the Lord Mayor had intro¬ 
 duced to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer occupied the atten¬ 
 tion of four-fifths of the people in the cities and rural districts of Ireland. 
 The position which he had the honour to hold in connection with the Irish 
 University movement enabled him to state that it was the question of 
 the present hour in Ireland. There had been numerous previous deputa¬ 
 tions on the subject. Among others was that from the municipality of 
 Dublin to Lord Beaconsfield, then Mr. Disraeli. Mr. Gladstone also had 
 received very influential communications from Ireland, and had made an 
 attempt, though unsuccessful, to settle the question. The people of Ireland 
 believed that a Government which had done so much for the religious con¬ 
 victions of England would not neglect the demand now made upon them in 
 behalf of Ireland for the settlement of this question. The large number 
 of signatures to the petitions had been referred to by Mr. Butt, and this 
 had been preceded by a great number of petitions in 1868, when the ques- 
 
46 
 
 tion of education formed one of the leading questions then agitating the- 
 country. He believed that at least a quarter of a million of signatures were 
 appended to the petitions which poured into the House of Commons, and 
 from that time to this the question had been more or less pressed upon suc¬ 
 cessive Governments. Yet the question had not been successfully dealt with. 
 In coming there from the Corporation of Dublin their chief object was to 
 press on the leader of the House of Commons the intense feeling uf the 
 people of Ireland on the subject. He did not think it would be going too 
 far to say that it was, from the Irish point of view, the most pressing of 
 all subjects. Young men were being sent out every day upon their careers 
 under great disadvantages, in consequence of the present constitution of the 
 Universities of Ireland. The majority of the people had conscientious 
 scruples against their sons attending these. They wished to transmit their 
 faith to their posterity without any dilution or depreciation whatever. They 
 believed that the time had come when the subject ought to be dealt with, 
 and it would be becoming on the part of the Government of the day—a 
 Government which had done so much for the cause of religion in England 
 —to take into consideration the feelings and wants of the Irish people on 
 this question. They had come there to impress upon the Right Hon. Gen¬ 
 tleman its importance, and they hoped and trusted that the Government 
 would set apart a day before long to admit of the question being discussed 
 in Parliament, and have the opinion of the country taken upon it. He felt 
 certain it was not too much to say that by giving due consideration to the 
 wants and wishes of the Irish people there would be a response—a hearty 
 response—given by the people (hear, hear). The Government which at¬ 
 tended to their wants would find that their appreciation would not be want¬ 
 ing (hear, hear). 
 
 Alderman Fry said that as he had the honour of seconding the resolu¬ 
 tion in their Council Chamber in Dublin, he would take the opportunity of 
 saying a few words from a Protestant point of view. The members of the 
 Council present, in their individual opinion, represented the several various 
 forms of political and religious faith held by the citizens of Dublin. He 
 had considerable knowledge of the views entertained by the people, and he 
 would say that he was not aware of any question which had been agitated, 
 which had been considered of so much importance as this question, not only 
 by the clergy, but also by laymen. The day the question was under consi¬ 
 deration in Dublin they had had one of the largest meetings he remembered, 
 and the feeling was almost unanimously in favour of the petition presented 
 by the Lord Mayor. It was true that many Protestants might differ in opi¬ 
 nion as to matters of detail. He thought they were all, however, prepared 
 to make concessions—it might be from their point of view to the prejudices 
 of the Catholics—which would meet their views. They did not, he thought, 
 propose anything calculated to injure the Protestant cause. The Catholics 
 wanted, and the Protestants were anxious that they should have the same 
 
47 
 
 privileges as they (the Protestants) enjoyed. He and the other members of 
 the deputation only asked, in fact, that the promise of religious equality to 
 all, which had been flaunted so frequently, should become an accomplished 
 fact. Irishmen in general were anxious to see this vexed question settled 
 once for all, and so bring about those cordial and kindly feelings which all 
 were so anxious should exist. 
 
 Mr. Councillor Dawson said it was scarcely necessary, after what Sir 
 Stafford had heard from the other members of the deputation, and from the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer’s own knowledge of the question, for him to 
 enter into the subject. It was, however, quite clear there was a necessity 
 for a change in the present system, and, as a citizen of Limerick, and having 
 held the office of High Sheriff last year, he had had opportunities of ob¬ 
 serving that the question was considered of the highest importance by the 
 people of Ireland. The number who attended Trinity College was lament¬ 
 ably small, and the number who entered for the art classes alone in the 
 Queen’s Colleges was ridiculous, and there could be no doubt but that these 
 institutions had failed to effect the purpose for which they were established. 
 He referred to the advantages which had accrued to other countries—nota¬ 
 bly Italy, France, and Germany—through the extension of their university 
 systems, and pointed out that any falling off in this respect was followed or 
 attended by a decline in learning and culture, and argued therefrom the 
 urgent necessity for provision being made for the large number of young 
 Irishmen who were at present precluded from the privilege of a university 
 education, and concluded by saying that the Government would confer a 
 great blessing on the people of Ireland if they would pass a measure such 
 as that which had been introduced by Mr. Butt (hear, hear). 
 
 Alderman Harris said that, without entering into any discussion upon 
 the merits of Mr. Butt’s bill, having supported in the Dublin Corporation 
 the movement to grant a charter for a Catholic College in Ireland, he consi¬ 
 dered it his duty, as he happened to be in London, to attend the deputation. 
 He was in favour of granting to his Catholic fellow-countrymen a measure 
 of education to the fullest extent they might, through their representatives, 
 demand, but he would not support or advocate any measure which would 
 interfere with the endowment, efficiency, and liberality of Trinity College, 
 Dublin, within whose walls some of his co-religionists were at present re¬ 
 ceiving their education, and many had graduated with honour to themselves, 
 and he felt a deep debt of gratitude for the liberality of feeling which had 
 always been manifested towards them by the governing body (hear, hear). 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, said—I had not expected to 
 have the pleasure of receiving so influential and important a deputation. If 
 I had I would have asked my right hon. friend, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, 
 to be here, as he has, and naturally so, paid more attention to the subject 
 than any other member of the Government. I may say, however, that I 
 
48 
 
 fully recognise the very great importance of the question you have brought 
 before me, and I entirely recognise the very great claims Mr. Butt has to 
 consideration in bringing such a measure before Parliament, and his right 
 to obtain a fair and full discussion. Mr. Butt not only has those claims 
 which a distinguished member of Parliament possesses, but he has strong 
 academical claims, and I am quite sure that in his hands any measure of 
 this sort would receive the best and most careful treatment. You know 
 as well as I do what underlying fires there are in connection with such 
 a question as that of University Education in Ireland, and I think you 
 will excuse me If I do not plunge into the question further than to say 
 that I have all along considered this a question which ought to be dealt 
 with, and that the statements which have been laid before me by this 
 deputation confirm me in my opinion (applause), I am quite prepared to 
 bring the matter before my colleagues, with a view to obtain a day for 
 the purpose of having the Irish University question discussed in the House 
 of Commons, as you wish (applause). I ought not, however, to conceal 
 from you that in the condition of business in the House of Commons, I 
 am afraid there will be some difficulty in the matter. There is business 
 we must attend to, and how much time it may occupy I cannot say. The 
 position Mr. Butt’s bill has on the paper is not a very favourable one, I 
 believe. It is, in fact, I think, down for to-day, and we may judge from 
 his presence here now, that there is very little prospect of it being reached 
 (laughter). This is not a question to be settled offhand. It is in good 
 hands (hear, hear). We should be prepared to consider carefully any¬ 
 thing coming from such a member as the Irish University Bill does (ap¬ 
 plause). 
 
 The deputation then withdrew. 
 
49 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 DIVISION ON THE SECOND READING. 
 
 The following Analysis of the Irish Vote is taken from Mr. McAlister’s Parlia 
 mentary Green Book of last session. 
 
 Irish Vote—Ayes, 54, Noes, 14. Absent, 34. 
 
 Home Rulers. 
 
 Biggar, Joseph Gilli.s 
 Blennerhassett, Rowland P. 
 Bowyer, Sir George 
 Brooks, Maurice 
 Browne, George Ekins 
 Bryan, George Leopold 
 Butt, Isaac 
 Callan, Philip 
 Collins, Eugene 
 Conyngham, Lord Francis 
 Dease, Edmund Gerald 
 Delahunty, James 
 Downing, McCarthy 
 Dunbar, John 
 Ennis, Nicholas 
 Errington, George ' 
 
 Fay, Charles Joseph 
 Gray, Edmund Dwyer 
 
 Conservatives. 
 
 Beresford, G. D. la P. (Arm) 
 Close, Maxwell Charles 
 Corry, Hn. H.W.L. (Tyrone) 
 Crichton, Viscount 
 Gibson, Rt. Hon. Edward 
 
 Home Rulers. 
 
 Brady, John 
 
 Dighy, Kenelm Thomas 
 French, Hon. Charles 
 MacCarthy, John George 
 O’Leary, William H. 
 O’Sullivan, William Henry 
 Shaw, William 
 Synan, Edmund John 
 
 Conservatives. 
 
 Archdale, Wm. Humphreys 
 Beresford, Ld. C. (Watfd.Co) 
 
 AYES. 
 
 Henry, Mitchell 
 King-Harman, E, R. 
 
 Kirk, George Harley 
 Lewis, H. Owen (Carlow) 
 M‘Kenna, Sir Joseph Neal 
 Martin, Patrick 
 Meldon, Charles Henry 
 Montagu, Rt. Hon. Lord R. 
 Moore, Arthur J. (Clonmel) 
 Morris, George 
 Murphy, Nicholas Daniel 
 Nolan, Captain John P. 
 O’Beirne, Captain Francis 
 O’Brien, Sir Patrick 
 O’Byrne, William Richard 
 O’Clery, Keyes 
 O’Conor, D. M. (Sligo Co.) 
 O’Conor Don, The (Roscmn.) 
 O’Donnell, Francis H. 
 NOES. 
 
 Guinness, Sir Arthur E. 
 Hamilton, Ion T. (Dub. Co.) 
 Leslie, Sir John 
 Lewis, Chas. Edwd. (Derry) 
 Macartney, J. W. Ellison 
 Plunket, Hon. David R. 
 
 ABSENT. 
 
 Bruen, Henry 
 Chaine, James 
 Cole, Col. Hon. Henry A. 
 Corry, Jas. Porter (Belfast) 
 Darner, Captain Dawson 
 Dick, W. W. Fitzwilliam 
 Goulding, William 
 Hamilton, Marq. of (Donegal) 
 Johnson, William 
 Kavanagh, Arthur MacM. 
 Moore, Stephen (Tipperary) 
 Mullhollaud, John 
 O’Neill, Hon. Edward 
 
 O’Gorman, Purcell 
 O’Reilly, Myles William 
 O’Shaughnessy, Richard 
 Parnell, Charles Stewart 
 Power, J. O’Connor (Mayo) 
 Power, Richard (Waterford) 
 Redmond, William Archer 
 Sheil, Edward 
 Sherlock, Serjeant David 
 Smyth, Patrick J. (W.meath) 
 Stacpoole, William 
 Sullivan, Alexander M. 
 
 Ward, Michael Francis 
 
 Liberals. 
 
 Cogan, Rt. Hon. W. H. F. 
 O’Donoghue, The 
 Swanston, Alexander 
 Whitworth, Ben. (Kilkenny) 
 
 Taylor, Rt.Hn. Col.(Dub. Co.) 
 Verner, Edward Wingfield 
 
 Liberal. 
 
 Smyth, Richard (Derry Co.) 
 
 Shirley, Sewallis Evelyn 
 Trevor, Lord A. E. Hill- 
 Wallace, Sir Richard 
 Wilson, William 
 
 Liberals. 
 
 Crawford, James Sharman 
 Dal way, Marriott Robert 
 Dickson, Thomas Alexander 
 Herbert, Henry Arthur 
 Law, Rt. Hon. Hugh 
 Taylor, Daniel (Coleraine) 
 Whitworth William (Newry) 
 
50 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 The following is the paper submitted to the Chancellor of the Exche¬ 
 quer in the month of May, requesting that an early day might be fixed for 
 the consideration of the bill: — 
 
 We, the undersigned members of the House of Commons, representing 
 Irish constituencies, feel it our duty to ask the attention of Ministers—espe¬ 
 cially of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the leader of the House of 
 Commons, to the bill introduced during the present session on the subject of 
 Irish University Education. 
 
 We have every reason to believe that the settlement proposed by that 
 bill will meet with acceptance from the heads of the Roman Catholic 
 Church in Ireland, and give satisfaction to the whole Roman Catholic 
 people. 
 
 Under such circumstances, it is of great importance that this measure 
 should receive an early and a full discussion. 
 
 It is impossible for it to do so unless facilities for that discussion are 
 •given by the Government. 
 
 In view of the importance of the question, the new position in which 
 it now comes before Parliament, and the deep interest taken in it by the 
 people of Ireland, we feel justified in pressing on her Majesty’s Ministers 
 the request that they will assent to the fixing of a day for the second 
 reading of the bill, so as to afford an opportunity for full discussion of a 
 question whieh statesmen of all parties admit to be of vital importance. 
 
 O’Conor Don, Co. Roscommon 
 Isaac Butt, Limerick 
 
 Mitchell Henry, Co. Galway 
 
 A. M. Sullivan, Co. Louth 
 
 John George MacCarthy Mallow 
 Cn. M. O’Loghlen Bart., Co. Clare 
 W. H. F. Cogan, Co. Kildare 
 
 Robert Montagu, Co. Westmeath 
 
 Charles Beresford, Co. Waterford 
 Francis Conyngham, Clare Co 
 McCarthy Downing Co. Cork 
 
 Richard O’Shaughnessy, Limerick 
 Patrick O’Brien, Bart., King’s Co 
 David Sherlock, serjeant, 
 
 King’s Co. 
 
 O’Donoghue, Tralee 
 
51 
 
 George Bowyer, Bart, Wexford Co 
 George Bryan Kilkenny Co 
 
 E. R. King-Harman, Co. Sligo 
 
 Keyes O’Clery, Wexford Co 
 
 J. P. Nolan, Galway Co 
 
 J. N. M‘Kenna, Youghal 
 
 Maurice Brooks, City Dublin 
 
 Henry A. Herbert, Kerry 
 
 Philip Callan Dundalk 
 
 F. O’Beirne, Co. Leitrim 
 
 John Dunbar New Ross 
 
 James Delahunty, Co. Waterford 
 Geo. H. Kirk, Co. Louth 
 
 Joseph G. Bigger, Co. Cavan 
 
 Chas. S. Parnell, Co. Meath 
 
 Wm. R. O’Byme, Co. Wicklow 
 Edward Shed, Athlone 
 
 Eugene Collins, Kinsale 
 
 Owen Lewis, Carlow 
 
 George Browne, Co. Mayo 
 
 R._P. Blennerhassett, Kerry 
 
 Chas. J. Fay, Co. Cavan 
 
 W. A. Redmond, Wexford 
 
 Richard Power, Waterford 
 
 Arthur Moore, Clonmel 
 
 John Brady, Leitrim 
 
 J. O’Connor Power, [Mayo Co. 
 Wm. H. O’Sullivan, Limerick Co. 
 E. J. Synan, Limerick Co. 
 
 M. F. W ard, Galway 
 
 Purcell O’Gorman, Waterford 
 
 Wm. Stacpoole. Ennis 
 
 J. O’Keeffe, Dungarvan 
 
 N. Ennis, Meath Co. 
 
 W. H. O’Leary, Drogheda 
 
 Alexander Swanston, Bandon 
 
 N. D. Murphy, Cork 
 
 Charles French, Roscommon Co. 
 Denis M. O’Conor, Sligo Co. 
 George Errington, Longford 
 
 George Morris, Galway 
 
 Charles H. Meld on, Kildare 
 
 Thomas A. Dickson, Dungannon 
 
 Benjamin Whitworth, Kilkenny 
 
 Edmund Dease, Queen’s Co. 
 
 Wm. Whitworth, Newry 
 
52 
 
 3 0112 
 
 061619364 
 
 APPENDIX D. 
 
 TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN. 
 
 RETURN to an Order of the Honourable The House of Commons, 
 dated 31st July, 1877;— for, 
 
 “ .RETURNS of the Number of Roman Catholic Students having their 
 Names on the Books of Trinity College, Dublin , at the present time : ” 
 “ Of the Number of such Students having Rooms within the College : ” 
 
 “ Of the Number of Roman Catholics who have been Admitted to Scholar¬ 
 ship in the College in each Year since, and including the Year 1873 : ” 
 “ Of the Number of Roman Catholic Students who have entered Trinity 
 College in each of the last Ten Years 
 “ And of the Number of Roman Catholics who have taken the Degree of 
 Bachelor of Arts in each of the last Ten Years.” 
 
 TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN. 
 
 Number of Roman Catholic Students having their Names on the Books of 
 Trinitv College, Dublin, at the present time : 
 
 75. 
 
 Number of such Students having Rooms within the College: 
 
 12 . 
 
 Number of Roman Catholics who have been Admitted to Scholarship in the 
 College in each Year, and including the Year 1873 : 
 
 1873 ... ... ' ... . 2 
 
 1874 
 
 1875 
 
 1876 
 1877 
 
 Total 
 
 Number of Roman Catholic Students who have entered Trinity College in 
 each Year of the last Ten Years : 
 
 1867 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 1872 
 
 
 .. 27 
 
 1868 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 1873 
 
 
 ... 34 
 
 1869 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 1874 
 
 
 ... 27 
 
 1870 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 1875 
 
 
 ... 20 
 
 1871 
 
 
 
 23 
 
 1876 
 
 
 ... 36 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 ... 269 
 
 Number of Roman Catholics who have taken the Degree of Bachelor of 
 Arts in each of the last Ten Years: 
 
 1867 
 
 1868 
 
 1869 
 
 1870 
 
 1871 
 
 Trinity College, Dublin, 
 11th August, 1877. 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 1872 
 
 ... 11 
 
 1873 
 
 ... 14 
 
 1874 
 
 ... 18 
 
 1875 
 
 ... 10 
 
 1876 
 
 ... 11 
 
 Total 
 
 ... 105 
 
 THOMAS STACK, 
 
 Registrar of Trinity College, and of 
 The University of Dublin.