That is to say, the O'Conor Don, having helped the Liberal party to disendow the Irish Church on the principle of religious equality, now proposes, out of the spoils of that institution, to endow a University for the exclusive benefit of Roman Catholics. If this is not Inequality, we really do not know

what is.

We think we have shown that the Liberal party cannot support a measure for the endowment of a Catholic University, because to do so would be contrary to their principle of religious equality; and that the Catholics are precluded from claiming such a measure, on the plea of justice to Ireland, because, in helping to disendow the Irish Church, they have repudiated the principle on which alone State endowment can be justified. But what of the Conservative party? The Conservatives, so far from having recognized the principle of so-called religious equality, offered every constitutional resistance to it in 1869. On the other hand, the Conservatives have never been slow to recognize the necessity of governing Ireland on just and generous principles. It is well known that it was Pitt's intention, after the Union was accomplished, to endow the Catholic priesthood, and nothing but the unfortunate state of the King's mind prevented the passing of a measure which might have materially altered the course of Irish history. Sir Robert Peel did what he could, by the increased grant to Maynooth, to carry out the spirit of Pitt's policy. Lord Mayo, in 1867, if he could have arranged matters with the Roman Catholic bishops, would have endowed a college to stand in the same relation to the Irish Catholics as Trinity College, Dublin, then stood to the members of the Irish Church. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Conservatives have been wanting in good-will to Ireland, and, in considering this question of the Irish University, we would make an earnest appeal to all members of our party to deal with it on those large and statesmanlike principles, which have been sanctioned by the traditions of nearly three generations. Let us remember that Conservatism covers a great extent of ground. We ask the extreme Protestant wing of the party to remember that the question has bearings, not only on the antagonism between Örangemen and Catholics, but on the foundations of our common Christianity. We ask those English Conservatives, who are still haunted with the apprehension that the Roman Catholic Church is engaged in a dark conspiracy against society, to look abroad to what is passing in France and Belgium, and then to say whether the Catholics or the so-called Liberals are in their opinion the more dangerous enemies of religious liberty.

And

And we ask all members of the party, which prides itself on taking an imperial view of English interests, to endeavour to rise above the antipathies of sect and race, and to consider only that statesmanlike solution of Irish difficulties is necessary to the well-being of the Empire. The Conservative party ought to be strong enough, without intimidating or being intimidated, to legislate for Ireland with simple regard to justice.

What then is the injustice in the present state of affairs? The Lord Chancellor tells us that the grievance which the present Bill undertakes to remove is this: "There are no means in Ireland of conferring a degree upon any person who does not submit to become a member of one or other of the two Univer sities.' The remedy he suggests is simple. The Government propose to create in Ireland a University after the model of the University of London, that is to say, a university which shall be a mere Examining Board, to confer degrees on all persons who may choose to submit themselves to the test.

Lord Cairns's statement of the Irish grievance is, technically speaking, exhaustive. As we have said, there is at present nothing in the shape of religious disability, to prevent any Irishman who chooses to reside for a certain period in one of the Queen's Colleges or in Trinity College, Dublin, or to fulfil certain alternative conditions which the latter institution imposes, from obtaining a degree at either of the Universities connected with these colleges, when he has passed the prescribed examination. But it is an undoubted fact that many Irishmen do not choose to submit to these conditions, and for all such persons the Government Bill provides an ample remedy. It might seem therefore as if the matter were settled. But in point of fact a substantial grievance still remains. There can be no doubt that the Queen's Colleges were founded and liberally endowed in the hope that they would attract Roman Catholic students. In founding these colleges,' said Sir Robert Peel, we shall promote social concord between the youth of different religious persuasions, who, hitherto too much estranged by religious differences, will acquire new means of creating and interchanging mutual esteem.'* It is notorious that the colleges have failed to realize the expectations of their founder. Lord Cairns's statistics prove this. Taking the three colleges together, the numbers are:-members of the Church of Ireland, 213; Roman Catholics, 230; Presbyterians, 387; and of all other denominations, 90. Looking therefore to the proportion of Roman Catholics in the whole population of Ireland, it is

*Hansard.' Third series, lxxx. p. 391.

plain that the rich endowments of the Queen's Colleges go to benefit, not the great majority who are Roman Catholics, but the minority who are Protestants.

It is no answer to say that this state of things does not constitute a grievance, because the Catholics absent themselves from the Queen's Colleges of their own free will. The Catholics of Ireland gave notice, when it was proposed to create these colleges, that they would not meet their wants. When leave was given to introduce the Bill, Mr. Sheil, an excellent representative of the Irish laity, said:

'Their object of course was to make the measure acceptable to the great body of the people, and above all, to those who had so great influence with them-the Catholic priesthood of Ireland-to conciliate whose feelings they had lately proved themselves most anxious. He believed that the great body of the Roman Catholic priesthood would murmur if no means were adopted for the purpose of conveying any religious instruction whatsoever."

*

These anticipations have been fully justified. The Catholics of Ireland do not enter the Queen's Colleges, because these institutions fail to provide one kind of instruction which all Catholics consider essential. They completely exclude religious teaching.

We decline altogether to look upon the objections of the Irish Roman Catholics to the Queen's Colleges as part of a Machiavellian design of the Catholic priesthood to keep the education of the laity under their own control. We see no reason why we should not accept their professions on this subject as sincere. We think that, on the contrary, their motives should be treated, not only by English Roman Catholics, but by English Churchmen, and English Christians of all denominations, with consideration and respect. For they are based upon a principle, which all orders of Christians have combined to defend since the passing of the Elementary Education Act. Though it is of course true that all children in England are directly or indirectly now compelled to attend school, while no person is obliged to enter a University, yet as far as education is concerned the principle of the Queen's Colleges is identical with that advocated by the Birmingham School Board. And against this principle Churchmen, Catholics, and non-political Dissenters, have never ceased to contend. They say that without religion moral training is an impossibility, and without moral training education is worse than useless. The Roman Catholics no doubt go to greater lengths than other Christian denominations in

*Hansard.' Third series, lxxx. pp. 381-2.

holding

holding that religion must be necessarily imparted in all branches of secular instruction. But the principle they defend is one which is common to all Christians, and which has been maintained, in the face of great difficulty and discouragement, with zeal, devotion, and self-sacrifice. We subjoin an extract from Dr. Rigg's book on 'National Education,' to show how deep is the feeling on this subject among the moderate English Dissenters:

'It must be admitted that, if the State is to interfere at all directly in the matter of popular education, its own function and responsibility should certainly be limited to that which is unsectarian, and, if it were possible, would be most conveniently limited to that which is secular in instruction and results. Here I find myself, in principle, pretty well agreed with the secularists. It is when they would forbid the co-operation of Christian organizations, and of Christian teaching, otherwise provided, with the functions and work of the State, in popular education, that, in common with most others, I am obliged to differ. As to what is positive I would go with them a long way, although I am not prepared to admit that it is necessarily wrong, or any violation of the rights of conscience, for public money to be ever directly devoted to Christian education in an unsectarian sense, to unsectarian religious popular education. But I must entirely differ from their negative and prohibitory conclusions, when they insist that the State is to provide a barely and exclusively secular system of national education, which shall be held separate and aloof from all union or blending of Christian instruction.'

The State has recognized the reasonableness of this position, and consents to pay public money, for the results of secular instruction, to schools supported by the voluntary aid of the various religious denominations, if protected by the Conscience Clause.

We see then that Lord Cairns's statement, that the grievance of Irish Catholics, in the matter of high education, is the difficulty of obtaining a degree, in consequence of conditions of residence imposed by the two existing Universities, is not an exhaustive statement of the case. Admitting that University education is desired by a large portion of the Catholic population of Ireland; that the Queen's Colleges were founded for the purpose of granting them this education; that the Catholics decline to avail themselves of the colleges from a motive which regulates the action of most of the Protestant denominations in England; and that consequently the rich endowments of the Queen's Colleges, which were meant to benefit Catholics as well as other sects, have tended almost exclusively to the benefit of Protestants-in the face of all this it can scarcely be maintained that the majority of the Irish people have not some ground for complaining of injustice, or at least of inequality. And if the Government

Government Bill were to be regarded as the last word which could be said upon the subject, the Irish Catholics would have good reason for declaring that their most substantial grievance was left without a remedy.

But then the Catholics on their side at present ask too much. They have learned their lesson in the school of O'Connell, and have seen too much of Government by Concession. Like the Sibyl of old, they have been always raising their terms. In 1865, while Trinity was still a close corporation, the O'Donoghue brought forward a motion praying for a charter for the Catholic University, but not claiming any endowment. In 1879 the O'Conor Don claims for a Catholic University both a charter and an endowment of 1,500,000Z. But the demands of the Irish Sibyl are not well timed. Since 1865 the Irish Church has been disestablished, and Trinity College has abolished her tests. The O'Conor Don would therefore make the Catholics the only endowed denomination in Ireland, and he would further give them their endowment out of the funds of a denomination which they have helped to despoil. He is not without a backing from English Liberals.

It is said we quote Mr. Forster-' that it would be a breach of faith to apply part of the surplus arising from the disestablishment of the Irish Church to the promotion of high education. I do not think that it would be a breach of faith; but if it would be so, a very large portion of the House has already committed a breach of faith, for this Bill proposes to do precisely what was done last year, and what my right honourable friend the member for Greenwich proposed to do in his University Bill.'

Mr. Forster must have spoken without reflection. He would otherwise have seen that the O'Conor Don's Bill proposes to endow not only high education' but the Roman Catholic religion. He would have seen moreover that, whatever Mr. Gladstone may have to answer for in his proposed University Bill, no breach of faith was committed in the Intermediate Education Act. The author of the Elementary Education Act ought to perceive that the Act of last year appropriates no money for religious purposes, but merely allows the managers of denominational schools, as in England, to receive payment from the State on producing certain results in secular instruction.

Let us now see how the account stands. We must put aside as impracticable all proposals, like that of the O'Conor Don, for the endowment of denominational establishments, whether Universities or Colleges. No government, whether Conservative or Liberal, could carry such a measure, and no responsible statesmen could venture to propose it. The disendowment of

the