THE IRISH UNIVERSITY QUESTION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XVII, Issue 38, 10 January 1890, Page 23

THE IRISH UNIVERSITY QUESTION.

Thb following is a speech recently made by Archbißhop Walsh at the Catholic University Medical School ia Dublin : — His Grace, who was received with applause, said: "Ihavebai occasion, gentlemen m re than once wituin the past few weeks to speak in public on some one or other of the grievances from which Catholics still have to suffer for conscience sake. Your address remii dB me, but, indeed, there *as little danger of my overlooking it that my visit to tbismetical school of our Catholic University brines me into contact with another of these— the grievance resulting from the arrang< ments maintained up to the present by the State in this country in the matter of University Education (applause?. I BDeak of this as a grievance which Irish Catholics have to suffir for conscience sake. I know, of course, that it will be denied that this is so. It is likely to be denied, at least by those who are responsible for the continued maintenance of the grievance. In tnese days of so-called nniversal toleration, British rtatesmen are very naturally unwil ing to face co unpleasant a fact, very natural y unwilling to have it rec .guised that ihe policy they pursue is one that tranches in any way upon the sacred rights of conscience. Bub no unwillingness to face the facts of a case, no denial of them, can change those facts What I have 6aid as to this university grievance is true, and, md ed so manifestly true that I cannot see wbut room there is for denial of it, or even f< r calling it |in question. For, when we say of any erievaice, imposed upon a Ca'houcthat itia to be endured by h»m for ensconce met, whet do we imply? Sorely nothing else than this that it is a grievance which presses upon him because of his Catholicity and because of his fidelity to Catholic principle, the result of some oppressive law which smts him out from the chance of sharing ia some advantaje that U placed by the Siate wi bin the reach of o'hers, an advantage which, in tbis way, is open to others and not to him— that is to *ay, wuich is not open to him so long as he continues conscientiously to follow the teaming of his Churcd, and from which, moreover, there is nothing to exclude him save only the fidelity with which he adheres, and his conscience tells him it is bis duty to adhere, to that teaching (applause). With grievances such as I have now described we in Ireland are but too familiar from a sad experience. We are face to face undoubtedly with one of them here to-day. Not, indeed, that in this matter of University Education there are now any advanatges of a public character from which Catholics, aB such, arc formally ( xcludedby the letter of the law. In at least one other department of the public administration of our country txarap'es even of such uucloakei intolerant exclusion of Catholics are 'still to be found. But ii this matter of University Education, the policy, v fortunately, still dominant in Ireland IB more guarded in the form of its operations. Appwen ly it has not the courage, or itia ashamed, opmly to declare itself for what it is. Even then, whilst it distinctly puts under a ban fidelity to the teachings and principles of me Caiholic Church, it wishes to keep up the false preience that it does nothing of the kind. So far as regards the dicplajing <f an outward thow of toleration it has improved, no doubt, upon its old practice. Not yet twtnty years a<?o-let m i be quite accurate, only sixteen years ago, down to the August of 187d — it was not asbam.d to take a much bolder and more defiant course. Down to that quite recent d.ite it ma le no scruple whatever in insisting that if we, the Catholics of ireHnd, were so presumptuous as to wish to fitanl upon a l"vei with our Protestant friends and neighbours in the matter of University ed iic Uion, we should qualify ourBelves tor the privilege by fii^t becoming Protestants ourselves ; we should make an oath of abjurau n ; or tike the Pro'eataot sacrament ; or stand up in some Frotestant church or other and there read our recantation of Popery and all its evil wayß (applause). This is the matter of University education, is literally true, not merely in that far-off time that ia known as the time of the Penal Laws, but down to our day. It was true, literally true, here, in this Catholic city of Dublin, down, as I have said, to sixteen years ago. The

scandal of it wai then in some degree hushed np and bidden away out of sigh', by •he passing of Sir. F<twcett's University Tests Act of 1873, the Ac* which abolished all religions tests in Trinity College and in the University of Dublin. Since the passing of that Act, Catholics whose ambition may lie ia the direction of obtaining even the highest honours of that ancient seat of learning, are, it U true, no longer under the necessity of abjuring their faith as the first step to* wards the attainment of the object of their ambition. Every honour, every emolument, in th\t college and university ia now thrown open by Uw to both students and professors of the Catholic religion, as it has also besn thrown open to students, if there be any such in Ireland, and to professors, as there unfortunately are, who are of no religion a' all. I am aware that many liberal-minded Protestants, and, amongst them, so-ne of the most eminent among the beads of Trinity College itself, welcomed that change. I cannot share their view, bat I most heartily sympathise with the feeling thu inspired it (applause). It suraly must have been a galling thing to any man of spirit in that college to feel that the tenure by which he held some highly-prised academic poßt of distinction, or of emolument, has its root in a system of intolerant exclusiveness, to feel that bis success in the aoademic straggle in which he had carried off the piize from his college com* patiiors had by anticipation been shorn of more than half its honour from the fact that by the very terms of the competition in which it was won, the contest for it could lie rnly between a favoured few, that every representative of intellect and gecius amongst the millions of his Citholic fellow-country men (applause) was rudely barred out frtm the arena, and that all this was done not because there were provided for the Catholics of Ireland corresponding prizes and distinctions for which they might c ompete even amongst themselves, but because it was the policy of the day, out of sheer intolerance, to exclnde every Irish Catholic wbo could not be bribed into renouncing his faith from all chance of winning any such prize or distinction in his native land (to id applause). It must, indeed, have been a galling thing for any man of spirit, holding high office in Trinity College, to think of these things. No wonder, then, that by many of those wiih : n as by many without the walls of the College, the change that was wrought in 1873 was hailed with satisfaction. There seems to have been in the minds of many — there certainly was in the minds of some— a belief or expectation that the passing of Sir. Pawoett's Act and the removal by it of the legal obstacle i that n >til then had barred against the Catholics of Ireland the path of h<gher academic promotion, would have effectually opened up, to Catholic ■ as well as Protestants, the competition for the higher prizas and distinct 'uns of the College and University. This was but one of those delusions, of which instances so frequently recur in the history of the attempts of well-meaning English legislators to work out their scien-tifically-constructed schemes of poiitical,or educational, or religious, or s cial reform in Ireland (applause). The Protestant* of Irtlini hid not aiked for the secularisation of Trinity Colle *c. The Catholics of Ireland bad not asked for it. As regards University Education, Irish Protestants bad no grievance to be removed. Irish Oa hoiic? bad indeed a grievance. It was their grievance that M«\ Fawcett, in his strange igMrauee of what was really wanted, wvtMineu to hare sought to remove by the secularisation of Trinity College. Now, not only had the Catholics of Ireland not asked for anything of tbe kind, bat the ctnnge then made did not even accord wi'h their wishes. Tnis point perhaps, is worth dwelling npon for a littlo while. In sitnn Protestant circles there seems just now to be a strange forgetfulnass of what occurred w ien Mr. Fawcett's Bill was being passed in tbe House of Commons. I have in view especially the blundering of one ecclesiastical dignitary— l am told he is an old man, so Ido not wish to spaak too severely about him ; the fault perhip*, in the circumstances, lies not so much wi h himself as with the newspapers that publish for him his mischievous lucubrations (langnter). He must at all events be either very ignorant or very malicious (renewed laughtet). I trust he may ba entitled to the less discrediting plea of the two (applause). His present line is that, although we are now dissatisfied with sll that has been done for us, even to the overturning of the old Protestant constitution of Trinity College, there was a time when this was not so, and when in tact we clamoured so loudly for that change that it had to b« made to appease us. All this is pure imagination ; fiction of the most manifestly .baseless type (applause). To see this we need only to refer to tbe volumes of Hansard for 1873. The second reading of Mr. Fawcett's Bill was moved by that gentleman on the 21st of April. Even in the face of the combination of English members of all parties, Conservatives, whigs, and Radicals, which rendered opposition to it futile, except indeed as a matter of the assertion of the principle, it met with the united opposition of the representatives of Irish Catholic opinion in the House. An amendment, hostile to the secmd reading, was moved by Mr. Mitcheii-Henry, then the representative of one of the largest Catholic constituencies in Ireland, the county of Gal way (applause). What did Mr. Henry say of Mr. Fawcett's Bill ? He spoke of it as a measure not unworthy of the earlier days of English history, " when either the word of the monarch or that of an oligarchy governing in his name imposed its will upon a reluc^aat people." He said that Parliament '• in a cooler moment would shrink from enacting laws npon a dome 3ie subject, contrary to the advice of the large majority of the Irish memoers and to the remonstrances of the people/ He described the bill as the outcome of the 'paliticial pedantry of legislating on abstract theories of right without taking account of what were scjffitngly called sentimental grievances, or studying the characters and tne prejudices of nations." Ag un, he said of it that it was " a measnre which, wheiher it was ;n; n itself a right or a wrong one, could have no perceptible eff jet on Oa holic grievances and was calculated only to blind ani deceive the public" (applause). The amendment was seconded by Mr. Denis Caulfiald Heron. Mr. Heron warnei the House of the mischief it was about to do. "It was,™ he said, " a very serious step to take, to force through the House and upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland, a measure with which they were discontented." Then the O'Donoghue spoke. Ha denounced the bill as "an indirect and unworthy attempt to force npon the people of Ireland a university syßtem, against which they bad solemnly

protested." He was astonished, he said, that Mr. Fawoett "shou'd persevere with the measure in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the Irish people, for such a cour c was a direct violation of the principles which ought to govern p member of tbe Liberal party " (applause). Mr. Pirn, then member for the oity of Dublin, said that the bill '* would relieve Irish Protestants who were not jpembers of the Episcopal Church, from the disabilities under which they at present laboured ; but it in no way touched the grievances of Irish Catholics — oo the c mtrary, it would bring them more prominently into view when the Protestant grievance was redressed." — Mr. Synan, tbe next speaker, also protested against the bill. He ■aid tbat " he could Dot regard it even as a step towards the settlement of the Irish Sducation question." Sir John Gray (loud cheers), member for the Catholic city of Kilkenny, "solemnly protested against tbe bill." Mr. Butt (renewed cheering;, member for the Oatbolic city of Limerick, sp >ke of the bill as " a leap in the dark." He sai 1 that it was ''repuoiated " by the Ca bolic* of Ireland, and that if it pasted and became operative on any large scale, it would only " create s> new hostility which did not then exist." Mr. Monster, member, I think, for Ctshel, also opposed the bill. There was, be said, " nothing granted by it tbe Catholics of Ireland would accept." Mr. Redmond (cheers), the father of two of the best known of the present body of Irish members (lond cheers,, spoke in tbe same strain. The bill, he said, was intended "to uphold" that "secular system which the people of Ireland would never accept." The Catholics," be said, " looked with distrust on what it proposed to do. They could not feel gratified at seeing the old University start upon a secular career. They did not wish to see Trinity College drawn down to the level of the ' Godless ' colleges. The Catholics of Ireland took a pride in its renown, and they feared that its character would be materially altered by the bill before the House." "If this bill." he said, " should become law, and if they persisted in ignoring the feelings and wishes of the people of Ireland, the question wonld be more seriously considered by them, and they would say tbat it was evidence to them that they mast seek for redress of their grievances in tbe nomination of their own Parliament, in which Irishmen would have the management of their own affairs " (prolonged cheering). IMy nothing from myself as to the subject touched npon in the concluding wirds of Mr. Be Jmond's speech. I trnßt I shall never be guilty of tbe impropriety of intruding my voice, my cunvictionß, as to that subject at a meetiDg such as this, as.embled for another distinct purpose, and possibly containing some whose views upon general political questions, especially upon the one great political question of the day are not altogether in accord with mine (loud app ause). I quote what Mr. hedtnond said, as I have quoted what was said by every other representative of Irish Catholic opinion who spoke during tbe debate, as evidence of the shameful ignorance— if, indeed, it be not malice — which now feebly attempts to put apon us the discreditable imputation, that it was we, Catholics of Ireland, who led Parliament into the policy which, so far as Catholic interests are concerned, has reduced Trinity College to the low level of one of the Queen's Colleges, a policy which we consequently protest can in no way be regarded as tending to the satisfaction of our Catholic claim (applause). The opening of Trinity College did not meet tbat claim. It left our grievance practically untouched. It cast out indeed from tbe legal constitution cf tne College tbe evil spirit of intolerant exclasiveuess. But to as, who look upon the matter in the light of Catholic piinciple, it is by no means clear, so far as we are concerned, that tbe last state of Trinity College is not worse than the first. One thing, at all events, ib clear. Ihe change wrought out by Mr. Fawcett's Act of 187S was not effected without the loss of much that, on its own merits at least, was worth preserving in the constitution o( tbe College. Seeing, then, that so much baa had to be sacrificed we may well ask, what has been gained instead f Have the unsightly barriers that for centuries enclosed so large a space of the arena of the academic contests of the coll ge been effectually rt moved ? Can the honours won there be regarded as the trophies of victories won in a field really open to the C thoiics of Ireland 7 Is it not, on tbe contrary, perfectly notorious that they are no hing of the kind ? (applause). A Parliamentary return obtained a few months ago by one of our Irish members of Parliament, Mr Macdonald, one of the members for the Queen's County (applause), shows the n mbers of under - grttdnates, as regards the religious profession of each, on the b>oks of Trluity College, Dublin, on tbe 3lsc D comber last year. The total number of undei graduates on the colKge books was practically a thousand, the exact figure was 981. Now amongst these, what was the proportion of Catholics f Wasitevtn 50 per cent.? Of coursi not. Forty, thirty, twenty, even ten per cent. ? No (laughtei). Not even ten per cent. ; not even nine percent. ; not even eight, not even seren per cent, (renewed laughter). Tbe total number of Catholic undergraduates, all told, was bat 61— that is, remember, 61 ou* of 982, making a percentage of only 62 of the whole (tpplause). Now, what more completely overwbelmi g evidence could thrrd baof the total failure of a policy, the authors of wbich had sacrificed so much iv their ventureßome effort an reform. To n»>, indeed, it has oftta b^en — us 1 suppose it has been to most of us— a subject of voider that any body of intelligent men could have hoped for any other reßuh. For, as regards the Catholics of Ireland, what was the ■am and substance of the change effected by Mr. Fawcett's Act ? What else, as regards onr position, did that Act effect but tbe lowering of Trinity College, in so fur as an Act of Parliament could in reality lower it, to the footing of a fourth Queen's College (applause) —a College, too, junior in point of standing by about a quarter of a century, to the then exis'mg Colleges of Cork, Belfast and Galway ? (laughter). That Act of Secularisation came in pimply as a general leveller. It abolished all religious tests in Trinity College. But in tbe Queen's Colleges, as they had stood from the beginning, there were no tests to be abolished (applause). If the Gatb'lio grievance were one tbat could be met by the establishment of a system of mixed education based npon the absence of religious tests, there wottld havu been but little of a grievance awaiting removal io 1873. Fo/ folly a quarter of a century before, three ool leges embodying that principle, and liberally endowed by the BUte, had been in full operation in Ireland. How far bad their existence contributed to tbe

s ilution of toediffi mlty ? To answer this question we need quote only one fact. Six months before the passing of Mr. Fiwcett'* Aot, the fore* moit statesman of the Liberal party, Mr. Glalstone himself (loud and repeited applause), had declared in a memorable phiase that, as regards the position of Catholics, tbe provision than existing for University education in freUnd was *' bad," miserably b*d," he " would almost say scandalously bad." This was so, notwithstanding the existance in Ireland of three Queen's Colleges. In truth, tbe existence of these colleges, enjoying as they did a monopoly of Parliamentary favour in the matter of grants to Ireland for the purposes of University education, was in itself one of the leading features of the grievance. Can we wonder then that nothing but humiliating failure resulted from a proceeding which differed in little mare than in name from the transformation of Trinity College into a new Queen's College in Dublin ? Again, I quote from Mr. Gladstone. In his short speech in favour of the second reading of Mr. Fawcett's Bill he took care it should not be supposed tbat be regarded the bill as one really opening the University of Dublin to the Catholics of Ireland on terms of equality with Protestants. — " My opinion," he said "is that the entire people of Ireland should have free access to the University of Dublin ; and I own, for my part, I go a step farther and say that, so far as I can see, it is impossible for them to have access, if they are to be confined to that teaching and that mode of passage into the University which Trinity College affords " (applause). " There is no doubt that Trinity College is a college of Protestant traditions and Protestant aspects, and Trinity College must long so continue." And Mr. Gladstone, as has been shown by the whole course of events since then, was perfectly right (applause). I have spoken to you of the small, insignificantly smnll, number of Catholics who saem willing to take the College as it is. But there is another aspect of the case. We have all heard of the College Chapel. They have Protestant service there, I suppose, every day ; at all events, oo Sundays. I understand tbat this service is looked upon as an academic function. Do not suppose tbat I object to this. On the contrary ; lam glad to find ttut there is atill in the College a solemn daily or weekly public acknowledge ment of the duty tbat men owe to God (applause)— it is oa acconat of the continuance of this religious service that, in speaking of the change made in 1873 as having reduced Trinity College to tbe lavel of one of the Qaeen's Colleges— a phrase that is not nnfreqaently used without qua ification— l alwayß make it a point to insert the qualification that this is so, as far as regards Catholic interests and the recognition of our Catholic claims. For whilst that College service is kept up, and ( trust that those responsible for the management of tbe college will n3vei allow it to be discontinued (applause). It gives a practical refutation of tbe foolish statement tbat Catholics who enter Trinity College find themselves received there on the broad open platform of religious equality. Nothing of tbe kind. Let as suppose for a moment that tne whole state of things was reversed, that the Protestant service was discontinued (laughter), and that, in its stead, Mass was said every day by a priest, one of the Fellows of the College ; that High Mass was sung there every Sunday, the principal place in the Church being occupied by the new Provost — let us say, for instance, your Rector here, Dr. Molloy (loud applause and laughter). How all tin Syoods would storm I (renewed laughter). With what indignation they would declaim against us if we co>lly told them that taey had nothing to complain of, that tbe College, notwiihstanding the High Mass and all the rest, was just as it ought to be, just what ought to satisfy them, btcause, after all, there were no religious tests in the place (.applause), and that if they waited on patiently for a century or so, things might tak« another turn in their favour (hud laughter), and that if they did not give up their unreasonable clamour, we should only look apon them as a very disagreeable, noisy, discontented set of people to have to deal with, whom it was simply hopeless tot as to try to satisfy, no matter what we did (applause). We must, then, on our side, take into account the fact toat, not the Mass, bat the Protestant serv.ee, is the public official act of worship of Trinity College, atd I may add— l add it inJeei with considerable pain — we must take into account this other fact also, tbat the Protestant clergy* man who is the present he id of the College, the Provost, d s.inguished scholar as he is, sees no impropriety in publUhing to the word, even since bis ele/ation to bis present responsible and delicate position, a work, written, as he says, with tbe object of brioging " Cnristiaas " closer together, in which, however, be has no better name for as than that which he mast know to be the offensive name of " Bomanists," and no be'ter name for the doctrines and practices of our Church than that which he mast know to be the offensive name of " Bomieh " (groans). These facts have, indeed, to be taken into account. Bearing them in mind, I cannot without qualification say of Trinity College that it stands quite on the same footing as one of the Que n's Colleges. I make that statement, then, only in the sense that it uolds good so far as Catholic interessand the absence of all recognition of them are concerned. When Trinity College was, in a sense, secularised in 1873, the position of Catholics in reference to the tbrae Queen's Colleges then existing in Ireland was thoroughly well known .

{To be continued.)

On Monday November 11 Mr. O'Brien rewired a visit in Galway Prison from Dr. Revel le, Coadjator Bomaa Oatbolic Bishop of standhurst; Re 7. Father Byrne, Dublin ; and Bey. Father O'Connor, Melbourne. They were admitted to the prison together. The Paris correspondent of the B%ily Telegraph paints a terrible picture of the condition of the lads of the lower classes in tbe French capital. There are thousands of them, he says, who infest the streets of the city, living in habitual idleness and wickedness, and ready for any crime. One of them has just been sentenced to death for two murden, one being that of an old man who was killed for five •hillings ; and this double murderer is only 17 years of age? Such ii the result of a Government founded on hatred of tbe Ghuroh ; a Government which makes godless education compulsory, and permits the shops of Paris to be filled with impure books and pictures. If ever there was a governing body which deserved to be abolished with •very mark of infamy it is the Municipal Council of Paris, ' >