Rite and ReasonInterparty government's taoiseach faced down bishops' efforts to end Trinity's involvement with the Agricultural Institute , writes Anthony Jordan
When the Catholic hierarchy sought to insist that John A Costello's second interparty government bow to its sectarian demands concerning the establishment of the Agricultural Institute, he vigorously affirmed the rights of Protestants in Ireland. As with the proposed Mother and Child scheme, other parties had a vested interest in the matter.
James Dillon, minister of agriculture, was conscious of the absence of any major scientific research in agriculture. He proposed that agriculture students would spend two years in universities and then transfer for another two years to the institute. This would be an independent body with its own board of directors drawn from universities and farming interests. The universities lobbied for development in their own centres and enlisted the backing of farming groups.
The Department of Finance objected to the scheme and, despite Fianna Fáil leader Eamon de Valera's backing during his tenure as taoiseach from 1951 to 1954, the proposals went nowhere. Dillon, however, maintained their previous policy when the interparty government was returned to office in 1954.
The Catholic bishops requested a meeting with Costello in 1955. Bishops Browne of Galway and Lucey of Cork represented them and were blunt about their objections. They told the taoiseach that "their" National University of Ireland (NUI) "must not be impaired" and that "Trinity College must not have a say in the teaching of agriculture in the new institute".
Costello replied that the institute was agreed in principle and "that the association of Trinity College with the institute was already agreed in principle and was now an accomplished fact".
He reminded Lucey that when he had earlier met de Valera as part of a delegation from UCC, no objection to Trinity was mentioned. He also told the bishops that de Valera supported the institute.
He assured them that his government "would not do anything which would give material for unfriendly persons to make charges against us of intolerance or unfairness towards the Protestant minority".
At a Christus Rex conference, Lucey had said the bishops "were the final arbiters of right and wrong, even in political matters". Costello sent the bishops a memorandum on the institute. Browne responded: "I thank you for your memorandum. As it violates the University Settlement of 1908, not even the agreement of yourself and de Valera could heal its fundamental defect."
Lucey attacked the institute in September, 1955. He said the scheme was "socialism of a gradual, hidden and underhand type". He described Trinity as "if not wholly Protestant, is free thinking or indifferent as regards religion". As such, he declared it should not have a position of equality with the NUI colleges. Costello sent eight lengthy documents on the institute to Archbishop McQuaid of Dublin.
The bishops wrote formally to the taoiseach on October 18th, 1955. Their letter attacked the institute as "another incursion of the State into the sphere of higher education. It would transfer Catholic students to a purely secular institute . . . it was a serious setback to the historical efforts of the Catholic people to secure higher education . . . "
They continued that "the Catholic bishops have never denied to their Protestant fellow citizens their just rights and due proportion of State endowment, in accordance to their numbers. We regard with serious misgiving the trend in recent years to allocate to Trinity College a State subsidy out of proportion to the number of Protestants in the State."
Costello's response on November 4th, 1955 was angry and spirited and backed by the entire government. He rejected the bishops' charges and inaccuracies, particularly that of "another State incursion" and that representation of TCD on the board was "an injection of external and hostile elements".
He wrote: "The proposed representation of TCD is not a question which can be decided on the basis of the numbers of Protestants in the 26 counties. Broad conditions of the national interest could not close their eyes to the fact that Protestants account for 24 per cent of the population of Ireland as a whole, and that the ending of partition is a primary aim of national policy."
He ended by stating that he would try to meet the views of the bishops and all other interested parties "to the utmost extent that they may appear compatible with the general interest of the country".
The reply from the hierarchy expressed "deep regret at the tone and contents of the document which the government thought well to address to it. The standing committee is satisfied that none of its main objections put forward by the bishops have been answered."
At their next meeting, the cabinet agreed with Costello's view that the bishops' letter "does not call for any reply".
John A Costello: Compromise Taoiseach, by Anthony Jordan will be published on September 30th by Westport Books.