I believe sufficient will come out in my statement to satisfy the Seanad in connection with the history of this matter. It can hardly be stated that this is a secret arrangement. I think that was alleged. An arrangement that was an open arrangement in fact for the last two years, can hardly be held to be secret. Not only that, but the whole matter was fully debated in the Dáil two years ago. The Government policy was then, as regards the College of Science and also as regards the Department of Agriculture, definitely enunciated by three Ministers. I do not think it can be said from that point of view that the Seanad, or the public, were kept in ignorance. The whole thing was not only well debated but was well reported in the papers at the time. I am speaking on behalf of the Minister for Finance who was in charge of the Bill then. That was the situation as it existed before the change that has taken place and that is being dealt with in this Bill. I am surprised at the opposition to this Bill here. It passed as a non-controversial measure in the other House. There was only one amendment in the Dáil put down expressly, as stated by the mover, for the purpose of getting a statement from the Government on one point.
The Government had to face two things. One was what they considered and what I also considered the anomalous position of the College of Science, a kind of fraction of a university without being a university or having the standing of one. In addition to that there was the other question, namely, the confessedly grossly inadequate endowment given to the National University. I say "confessedly" because it was confessed and admitted by Mr. Birrell when providing the endowment for the National University and its constituent colleges. The financial provision for the National University was inadequate not merely as regards the yearly sum provided which did not allow them to have the full faculties a modern university should have, but also in the way that sufficient money was not provided to supply University College, Dublin, with adequate buildings. £150,000 in all was voted to supply buildings to University College, Dublin, and the National University. It was contemplated that buildings would be set up for the National University as well. That sum was divided by the Commission set up by the British Government into £40,000 for the National University and only £110,000 for University College, Dublin. That was to provide buildings for a college that catered for the university needs of the greater portion of the people of this country. Anyone, if they consider what building costs are, will see how grossly inadequate such a sum was. It was made still more inadequate by the outbreak of the war, which meant that not merely was the original building unsatisfactory and incomplete, but it had to be still more incomplete owing to the outbreak of the war when the clause which permitted contracts to be broken allowed most of the scheme to be scrapped. We had to find provision for the country's biggest medical school in a slum. Can money be easily found? Can the Government provide over a quarter of a million when they have a building at their doors which will, to a large extent, meet that situation? I will refer again to the position of the College of Science. There was that need to be satisfied without involving the taxpayer in a heavy sum. They could, by this transfer, meet to a great extent the needs of University College, Dublin, so far as buildings were concerned.
The College of Science has struck this position: when it was being set up it was endowed with a large amount of money at a time when the university question was being strongly agitated in this country. As a result of the setting up of the College of Science, that was used as an excuse for the unsatisfactory endowment of University College, Dublin. I do not say that that was the purpose of the people who set up the College of Science, but that was the effect. That is the position as regards University College, Dublin. There was, therefore, presented to the Government an opportunity of doing two things, each of which they considered desirable—one the satisfaction of the economic needs of the National University and University College, Dublin, and the other, what they considered to be the need for a proper basis for the College of Science itself. It has been objected—and it was objected when this was being debated in the Dáil—that there was no justification for the separation of applied science from ordinary university work. It was considered damaging both to applied science on the one side, and damaging to the whole conception of the university on the other.
There was a definite refusal here to advance the position that the university should be a modern institution in every sense of the word, catering not merely for the Humanities and the ordinary conception of Science, but that it should also cater for the technological and economic needs of the nation. Duplication was objected to. There is, as I have already indicated, duplication in Universities in Dublin. That is unavoidable; that is necessary. It is the general view of the country, and it is a view that I personally share, but why should they be triplicated? You would have one institution under the control of the Minister for Education and a Government Department and another institution with a semi-university status. Then you would have not merely duplication but triplication. There is no fear that there will be any curtailment under the Bill or any cutting down of the useful work performed by the College of Science. Why that should be feared I am not quite clear. Personally, I am convinced that not only should the opposite follow, but that it will follow. You will have the same equipment for a number of years. You will have exactly the same professors conducting that particular work, but I suggest you will have something more than that.
Senator Brown referred to a number of non-associate students. There was, during a period, recently, owing to the British ex-Servicemen, a comparatively large proportion of non-associate students, but as a rule the bulk of the College of Science students were associate students—that is, students going for the Associateship. What is the position, then? You had, roughly speaking, in the neighbourhood of 200 students in the College of Science. Taking the Secondary schools in the old days of the tests, where did the best student go to? I think you may say that examinations are not the best test for students, but they were the only tests we had and they were successful, in so far as a matter of this kind may be regarded as satisfactory. Did they go to the College of Science? No; they were attracted by the Universities, with the result that there was a tendency on the part of students to neglect the practical side of the work which would be most useful for the country. Very few of the best boys, the exhibitioners from the intermediate schools, went to the College of Science. Naturally, they were attracted by the glamour, the wider scope and the bigger life of the Universities.
Then there were arrangements between the College of Science and the two University Colleges in Dublin. There is no reason, so far as Trinity College is concerned, why that arrangement should not continue. The same arrangement could be easily made and I am certain will be made, if Trinity College so desires, with University College, Dublin, for the future. As a matter of fact, the College of Science is not used by many Trinity students. When the debate was on, two years ago, in the Dáil, the allegation was made by one of the Ministers that there was only one student. The most that could be given in the debate at that time was two students. The bulk of the engineering students, those who attended the engineering classes, came from University College, Dublin. Why? Because, owing to the truncated provision for University College, Dublin, they could not continue their education in the University they started in. They did two years in University College, Dublin, and for their mechanical engineering course they went to the College of Science. I doubt if there were half-a-dozen students from Trinity College there at any time. I do not think it is proper that what is and what should be University education should be kept apart from University life. The matter comes on late in the Session of the Seanad, but that does not, as I gathered from the opening statement of the Cathaoirleach, prevent full consideration. It has certainly been before the public. The Government's opinion and policy on the matter have been before the public for quite a long time.
I cannot consider this a retrograde step. I think it is a necessary step. It is a step that gets us in line with most of the advancing countries in Europe. I am aware that Germany has separated technological work from ordinary university education, but I am also aware that many Germans regret that such a course or development was ever entered upon. A Commission was set up in London in 1910 about this whole project of separating technological work from university work. In America and in various continental centres—Belgium, Louvain, Liege—the general practice is for universities to be fully equipped not merely for the humanities and the theoretical side but also for applied science.
Senator Sir John Griffith read the resolution of the Seanad. I suggest that there is nothing in harmony with what you are asking us to do to-day in that particular resolution. That resolution asked that the College of Science should be restored to its legitimate use. It is being restored to its legitimate use. It is no longer a Government Department occupied by Government officials. It will again carry on educational work. The resolution also asks that the efficiency of the college be maintained. I hold that the efficiency will be increased.
Research undoubtedly was portion of the work of the College of Science in the past. I always held the opposite, that research was one of the most important functions of the university. The thing has not been hastily considered or ill-considered. It has been before the Government and before the educational authorities for the last three years. That shows that we cannot be accused of haste. I admit that much more rightly we can be accused of undue delay in the matter. I apologise for the lateness with which this Bill is introduced in the Seanad, but it is entirely due to the stress of ordinary Government work and was unavoidable.
Senator Sir John Griffith, who seconded the motion for the postponement of the Bill, in his introductory statement said that the main purpose of the Bill was the transfer of the College of Science. Therefore, I admit that, in supporting the postponement of the Bill altogether, he is quite consistent. The most important part of the Bill undoubtedly is the question of the College of Science. I prefer that the Bill should not go through and that the Seanad should hold it up rather than that we should be asked to delete that particular section, but holding up the whole Bill involves very serious complications not merely as regards other portions of the Bill but as regards the College of Science. The Budget was drawn this year on the basis of this Bill passing. What is to happen to the College of Science after the 30th September, which is the date up to which we have budgeted for the college, if this Bill is not passed, is not very clear to me. This Bill was regarded as a non-contentious Bill in the other House and I did not consider that it would meet with any objection on principle in this House.
As regards one or two questions that were put to me, I think Senator O'Farrell suggested that the Faculty of Agriculture should be transferred from Dublin to Galway. That is a matter to which I could not give favourable consideration. I do not think any case of that kind was made out. There was, I know, considerable agitation in Galway about the status of the University College. It was alleged that the Government had the intention of doing away with the Galway College. There was no such intention on the part of the Government. The Government was anxious and expressed the desire that Galway College might fulfil its functions better if it were in some respects altered. Galway was under the impression that it would not function better. There was no intention to do away with Galway College. It is not our policy. I might refer to the Report of the Commission which came in towards the end of April and which dealt with the position of Galway College. Subsequently, it was considered that the matter could not be dealt with this year. Hence these other promises were postponed, but even already it was intimated that in certain respects some of the Galway claims could be met, but not so far as the Faculty of Agriculture was concerned. I am convinced that, as a result of this measure, we will increase the efficiency of the College of Science as a scientific institution. I think it will be of much more service to the country under the proposed reconstruction than it has been in the past. I doubt if there are any students actually in the College of Science that were not told exactly what the situation was. However, that is a matter that can be looked into to see if there are any such students.
