maintain our legitimate influence at Peking in face of the action of other Powers, must be admitted. But it is none the less a departure from our recognized policy in China, and cannot but be regarded as an unfortunate necessity.

The process of dismemberment has commenced. Where will it end? One thing seems certain. If China wishes to retain the possession of her remaining territory and to check that partition of her Empire which has already begun, only one course is open to her, since as a fighting power she is by common consent quite unable to guard her own frontiers. By throwing open all her maritime and inland ports to foreign trade, she would place them under the safe and sure protection of the Treaty Powers, and would put it beyond the range of possibility that any one State should, after the manner of the Russians at Port Arthur and the Germans at Kiaochow, seize on ports and territories. But when once the immediate pressure is removed, it seems hopeless, judging from past experience, to expect that her statesmen' should realize and carry out this elementary act of salvation. At present, Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all,' she is in daily danger of dismemberment, and so purblind are her counsellors that, if she is to be saved at all, it must be by action taken against their will and in defiance of their most cherished prejudices.

ART.

ART. XII.-1. The Irish University Question, the Catholic Case. Selections from the Speeches and Writings of the Archbishop of Dublin. Dublin, 1897.

2. The Reports of the Presidents of the Queen's Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway. Presented to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. Dublin, 1897.

3. Fifteenth Report of the Royal University of Ireland. Dublin, 1897.

4. University Education in England, France, and Germany, with special reference to the needs of Ireland. By Sir Rowland Blennerhassett, Bart. London, 1898.

MONG the many vexed Irish questions, over which controversy has so long and persistently raged, there is none that involves more perplexing problems of debate than the establishment of a Roman Catholic University. Within the last sixty years several attempts have been made to settle the problem of the higher education of the Roman Catholics of Ireland by legislation, but their hierarchy are still dissatisfied, and the agitation for separate treatment has only gathered strength with the lapse of time.

No leader of the movement for the settlement of the Roman Catholic claims has been more determined in attack upon the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics suffer, than Dr. Walsh, Archbishop of Dublin. His book, mentioned at the head of our article, embodies his writings and speeches on the subject since his appointment to the diocese of Dublin in 1885, and its publication marked an important stage in the history of the agitation, coincident indeed with the debate in the House of Commons which brought the question to a definite issue at the opening of Parliament in January 1898.

To understand the difficulty of the problem, much more to attempt its solution, it is necessary briefly to review its history, with special attention to previous efforts to solve it by legislation. Anyone who has the most casual acquaintance with the people of Ireland and the history of that country must be aware of the passionate devotion which the Roman Catholics feel for their ancient faith. Neither penal laws, nor proselytizing schools, nor other similar agencies have weaned them from their allegiance to the Roman Church. Nay, further, as Sir James Graham well said, in introducing the Bill for the establishment of the Queen's Colleges, the various plans for educating the people of Ireland with the aid of Government grants had generally failed, and they had failed whenever there was an interference with conscience in matters of religion.'

In the past the position of young Roman Catholics in respect to higher education, and State aid, was deplorable. Every endowed school in Ireland was Protestant, and it was not until the establishment of the Intermediate education system in 1878 that the Roman Catholic schools and colleges received any State aid (on terms applying equally to Protestant schools), and this only as the result of reaching a high standard of examination. Until the establishment of the Queen's Colleges, in 1845, the University of Dublin, with its one college, Trinity, was the only University in Ireland. Founded in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, it has for upwards of three centuries been the centre of Protestant thought, culture, and feeling. In this respect it was in no way different from the sister Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The Protestant religion was that by law established, and every other denomination was in consequence excluded from the degrees and privileges of Dublin University. But long before Oxford and Cambridge had thought of extending their advantages to the youth of alien creeds, Dublin University offered the privilege of its degrees to the Roman Catholic youth of Ireland. But although Roman Catholics accepted the privileges thus opened to them, Dublin University, with its Protestant character and traditions, never overcame the hostility of the Roman Catholic Church. After the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, a strong demand was made to remove the disabilities under which the Roman Catholic youth of Ireland suffered in the matter of higher education. Sir Robert Peel admitted the justice of the claim, and a Select Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Thomas Wyse, was appointed to enquire into and report upon the subject. Acting upon the recommendations of this Report, Peel's Government introduced two measures in 1845. The first reconstituted Maynooth on a more independent foundation and largely increased the endowment of that College, which was established in 1795 for the education of those intended for the Roman Catholic priesthood; the second met the wants of the lay members of that and other denominations on the basis of religious equality, by establishing three colleges, in Belfast, Cork, and Galway. The treatment of Maynooth was most generous: a sum of 30,000l. was granted for building purposes, and the annual grant was raised from 8,9287. to 26,3601., which was to come from the Consolidated Fund; and we may here note that under the Irish Church Act (1869) the College received a sum of 369,040/. in compensation for the cessation of this grant. About 100,000. was granted for the building of the new Colleges; an annual sum of 10,000l. was granted to each for endowment; and a further

further sum of 5,000l. a year to defray the necessary expenses incurred in examinations under the new University scheme.

The difficulties Peel had to meet were formidable and real enough to try the patience and courage of that intrepid statesman. He had faced political and religious bigotry on the question of Catholic Emancipation, and he fearlessly met a hostility equally bigoted on the Maynooth Bill, against which three thousand petitions found their way to the House of Commons. No man ever grasped the whole difficulty of the 'Irish problem' more comprehensively than Sir Robert Peel. He laboured incessantly to lay the foundation of better social order in Ireland, and to detach the best elements among the Roman Catholics from the agitation which rendered government of that country almost impossible. He thoroughly understood the forces at work, and the patient toil which he devoted to grappling with them was, as he himself said, 'too much for human strength.' The guiding policy of the new collegiate system, in the words of Sir James Graham on the second reading of the Bill, May 30, 1845, was to be as follows: This collegiate system is avowedly an extension, and nothing more than an extension, of the present system of National Education, from the children of the humblest to the children of the middle and upper classes.' This system was established in the primary schools in 1831, on the basis so well known in Ireland as ' combined secular and separate religious instruction.' From the beginning it has worked well. More than three-fourths of the National Board (primary) schools are under the management of the clergy of the various denominations, and opportunity is given for religious instruction at hours arranged by the managers; but the State offers no remuneration for such instruction, which, however, is widely undertaken by the teachers in addition to their secular duties.

Sir Robert Peel, having seen the system successfully at work, modelled the Queen's Colleges, as they were called, on the same principle. The staff of each College was appointed by the State, and the Government were to maintain complete control over the management of the Colleges. The keeping of terms by attendance at lectures was made compulsory; but no residences were provided for students, nor did the State pay any minister of religion to instruct them in the principles of their faith, or attend to their spiritual wants.

It is not difficult after the lapse of half a century to see defects in the system, as applied to higher education and to the instruction of students living away from their own homes. It is easy to censure Peel, and pour the epithets of 'halting,'

'lame,'

lame,'' costly,' and 'fantastic' upon his scheme, but the fault of its want of success surely lies not so much with Peel as with those who have refused to accept it and loyally work to remove its defects. It must be remembered, in justice to Peel, that the scheme was not launched without the full knowledge of the highest Roman Catholic prelates in the land, and that Archbishop Croly, Primate, and Dr. Murray, Archbishop of Dublin, approved of the scheme and agreed to the establishment of the Colleges. Further, in answer to the objections raised to lack of endowment for religious instruction, he had already dealt generously with Maynooth, and he naturally looked for support to his scheme from those whom it was especially intended to succour. Peel felt, too, that in the House of Commons and the country at large, there was a limit to the support he would receive in any further concessions, which would increase the endowment of the Roman Catholic priesthood. It would have been easy indeed, in order to remove these defects, for a Church that commanded so many teaching Orders, to have grafted resident establishment supon the system, or made provision for religious instruction under deans of residence, thus following the policy of Archbishop Murray, and according to existing statutes. Spent in this direction, the money wasted on the costly failure of the Roman Catholic University would have gone far towards solving the present difficulty.

The three Queen's Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway were opened in 1849, and in the following year the Queen's University was founded. While much liberty was given to each College in the management of its own affairs, the general government of the University, the preparation of its curriculum, the appointment of examiners, and the granting of degrees were entrusted to the Chancellor and Senate of the new University. The fact is not generally known that the name of Dr. Murray stands third on the list of the original members of the Senate. But these were the days when the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin attended the levee of the Lord Lieutenant; and the Primate and he took their seats on another Board in spite of the thunder and opposition of O'Connell and John of Tuam.' Though the Roman Catholic clergy were not unanimous in supporting the new Colleges, there can be but little doubt that they would in time have adopted the wise and enlightened policy of the Archbishops. But Dr. Croly died the year the Queen's Colleges were opened, and two years later the Archbishop of Dublin followed him to the grave. The successor to each in turn was Dr. Cullen, who became the arch-opponent of

the