I hope that Deputy O'Connell's remarks were really made with the idea of drawing attention to the smallness of the grants rather than the reverse. I think probably that was his intention. I want to make a comment on the footnote appended to this Estimate, where, no doubt, Deputies have observed that the years referred to appear to be different. I daresay it also has been said, and rightly said, that these estimates are for the current financial year, and this is only a term of explanation. No doubt that is true. I want to make it quite clear, so that the point may not be raised against me later, that the grant given under the University Grants Committee to Trinity College—and here I speak entirely for my own University— that that grant was explicitly given as a grant for a particular financial year. We received grants of £12,000 a year for three different financial years from the University Grants Committee—i.e., 1919-20, 1920-21, and 1921-22. After the Treaty, owing to the necessity of the time, the Government, and I am grateful to them for it, realised the urgency there was for continuing these grants until matters could be put upon a proper and permanent basis, and pending arrival at that desirable stage they agreed to give this grant of £6,000 as part of what had been given in the previous year to carry us on over our present difficulty. Now, I fully agree to what the President said as to the need for economy. Perhaps it is due to my name that I should urge it as strongly as anybody, but I want to draw a sharp line between the different kinds of expenditure. There is productive and unproductive expenditure, and I hope the Government will not take up the position that cutting down expenditure on education is a good way to begin the cutting down process. Expenditure upon education is probably the most likely expenditure to be productive, not merely ultimately, but at an early date. I hope we shall not fall into the mistake that has been made in other countries of attempt ing to curtail expenditure by starving education. Now, I ask the indulgence of the Dáil while I make a statement, because this is surely the time when it is necessary to discuss whether such a grant as this can be regarded as an adequate grant for the year, and it may be said later if I refrain now, “You should have raised this point sooner.” This is the financial estimate for the year 1922-23, and I think it necessary for members of the Dáil as well as the Government to be aware how the position stands with regard to the Universities. In the year 1919 Universities with more or less fixed incomes were faced with enormous increases in maintenance costs. It was agreed that salaries were inadequate, and as in many cases indeed they were. They were not able to call upon the State for bonuses for their staff. Bonuses were given and given broadcast in many departments of the State, but the officials of the Universities could receive no such bonuses unless State aid was guaranteed. The Universities Committee recognised it, and made this plan regarding grants to enable Universities to tide over the difficulties. With reference to Trinity College a Commission of inquiry was appointed and their report was favourable. As a result they recommended to the British Government that the grant should be £49,000 a year, and in response to that recommendation in the 1920 Act, there was a grant guaranteed to Trinity College of £30,000 a year. That grant was in addition to the capital sum also recommended by the Committee, which also did not materialise. Nevertheless, on the strength of that Act the College felt itself in a position to act immediately with reference to its employees, increasing wages, and, in many cases also, increasing salaries. To give one example: The salary attached to the Chair of Irish was doubled on the strength of that grant, Now, when the Government of Ireland Act did not operate, and when negotiations began to take place in London on quite a different basis, it was represented to the British Government that these promises made to the University should be maintained in the Treaty established between the two countries, and although that was not done, an assurance was given by Mr. Griffith that the guarantees in the 1920 Act in reference to University finance and independence would lead to no difficulties with the new Irish Government. It was true that when the Treaty came to operate there was no reference to this matter, and the Prime Minister in England could only state that it would be necessary for Trinity College to rely on the goodwill of the Irish people. I am perfectly content to rely on the goodwill of the Irish people. I think this Dáil has already given evidence of that goodwill, and has shown that the Irish people appreciate the good work universities are doing, but, at the same time, I want the people and the Dáil to realise exactly what the change has meant to the universities. Instead of given guarantees of definite sums to the universities —take, for instance, my own college —instead of being guaranteed £30,000 a year, it is now in the position of having no guarantee at all. The result of the 1920 Act was that the grants from the Committee immediately dried up, and it was with the greatest difficulty, when the 1920 Act failed to operate, that the grant for the next year, 1921-22, was continued. I make a further point. Now, if those grants were necessary at that time, how much more necessary are they to-day? With reference to our University—a considerable part of its funds is derived from landed property and old endowments. The result of the last year has been that the revenues of Trinity College have been depleted to a very large extent. Roughly speaking, we can say it received less in revenue by £10,000, and that falling-off in revenue means that against £22,000 we have only to set this £6,000, for which, nevertheless, we are very grateful to the Government and the Dáil. But I urge that it is not sufficient, and that we shall not be able to carry on our work and maintain it at its former efficiency unless we get some further support than this £6,000. I have two points, one general —one of the increased cost of maintenance of the various Universities—and the second that we have the claim that much of our revenue comes from the rents due to us from landed property, which revenue has fallen this year owing to the state of the country. Perhaps I have said enough to make it quite clear that, while I recognise the Government has done all that it can do at present, I hope they will feel that this grant made now will not preclude them from making a supplementary grant when we see how we stand at the latter part of the financial year.
