§ MR. RAIKES, who had given Notice of a Motion for a Copy of the Memorial presented by the Teachers of Irish National Schools to Her Majesty's Government during the present year, said, he rose to call attention to the hardship inflicted upon the Masters of National Schools in Ireland by their liability to capricious or arbitrary dismissal by the patrons or managers of the schools. It might appear as if some apology were needed on his part for bringing forward a question which might have seemed more properly to belong to one of the special representatives of the sister country; but he would observe that this was a difficult question for Irish Members to treat, inasmuch as it was not easy to avoid mingling with it some sectarian feeling, and he desired, in dealing with it, to observe that moderation of tone which was desirable in treating a subject which required very delicate handling. He disclaimed the desire to make any party or religious capital out of the question before the House. It had been stated in a leading Irish journal that he had taken up this question as a means of damaging the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland. Nothing could be further from his wish. He recognized most fully and most gratefully the persistent endeavours made by the Roman Catholic clergy to improve the education of the people under their charge; and he thought it would come with an ill grace from one not of their communion to slight what they had done, when many Protestant landlords, possessing equal opportunities, had not availed themselves of them. In considering this question it became important to remember the difference existing between the systems of education in Ireland and in England. In England schools were supported by large subscriptions, from school fees, and 597 from Government grants, whereas in Ireland national education was supported almost wholly by grants from the Imperial Government. He believed he might state upon authority that the amount contributed towards education in Ireland by the State was £340,000 a-year, while the school fees were £42,000 a-year, the amount received from subscriptions and endowments not exceeding £12,000 a-year. In this country we were familiar with a denominational system and a committee of management. In Ireland, on the contrary, the management of the schools was vested, in almost every case, in a patron, who had constituted himself patron simply by an application to the National Board for a school to be established in his parish. The patrons, as a rule, rarely contributed to the support of the schools they managed; but they exercised over them an authority which, when vested in a single individual, if it did not lead to acts of despotism, induced, at all events, a suspicion that such acts might be committed: and those who were placed under an irresponsible patron felt that a sword was continually hanging over them and ready to fall. Out of 6,240 schools in Ireland about two-thirds were under the patronage of the Roman Catholic clergy, and of the remaining third about 1,700 were under Protestant patrons, and 300 in the hands of lay Roman Catholic patrons. It was creditable to Protestant patrons that they had been much actuated by a wish to consider the religious predilections of those for whom the schools were built. Since he had given Notice of this Motion, however, he had been in daily, and almost hourly, receipt of letters calling attention to the arbitrary exercise of power on the part of patrons; and he believed that in many cases the charge might be established. The great majority of the Irish school teachers felt it as a grievance that they might at a moment's notice be turned out of the schools they occupied, and cast adrift upon the world. The information which he had received left no doubt that the feeling of the teachers was very strong against the continuance of this arbitrary power of sudden dismissal. They did not wish to set themselves up as judges of the course of conduct to be observed in the schools; but all they asked was that they might, as schoolmasters, have 598 that security which the Government gave to the cottiers and peasantry whom they saw around them. The wishes of these teachers had been already expressed by themselves; and, therefore, he was not under the necessity of detaining the House by any statement of his own. The Congress of National Teachers in 1869 and 1870 had passed resolutions, laying the greatest stress on something being done to abate the arbitrary power of dismissal. A deputation then waited on the Prime Minister, and placed in his hands a memorial signed by 2,140 Irish teachers, urging that steps might be taken by the Government to make their tenure of office more secure. But it was said that the teachers were no longer anxious to agitate the question of managerial grievance. It was quite true that the Central Executive had passed a resolution advising the provincial associations to suspend their agitation of this grievance; and the Dublin Association of Teachers passed a resolution, laying stress on the fact that some of the best friends of the teachers had expressed their disapprobation of the agitation, and their hope that it would not be pressed at the present moment. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire)—a great authority on all matters relating to the class from which the teachers were drawn—said, in 1869, that fair notice should be given of complaint to the teachers, and they should not suddenly be thrown helpless and desolate on the world. That was a sentiment which would find many supporters on both sides of the House. The Freeman's Journal, so recently as the 1st of January last, had a strong article on the subject expressing the views of a very influential section of Catholic opinion in regard to it, saying that this was an intolerable grievance, and that measures should be taken immediately to put an end to it. In a short time, however, The Freeman's Journal changed its tone. A letter was written on the 18th of January, 1871, by the Right Rev. Dr. Donnelly, Roman Catholic Bishop of Clogher, to a parish priest in his diocese, calling attention to the fact that a Mr. Cassidy had attended the meeting of national teachers recently held in Dublin, and supported a resolution which was subversive of the fundamental principle of Catholic teaching; and that if this had not been Mr. Cassidy's first offence he should have called 599 for his dismissal from any school in the parish; but he should be severely admonished, and must give a guarantee that he would avoid participation in such agitation for the future. [The hon. Member, having read the letter, proceeded to say]—Now, the resolution this condemned was the one to which he had referred, requiring some protection against arbitrary dismissal. Surely after such a letter it was no wonder if Irish teachers were shy, and had in some instances receded from the attitude they had generally taken up on this question. The teachers had a right to demand that they should be treated fairly, justly, and openly, and not become the victims of a tyranny which might assume a most obnoxious character. One of the Assistant Commissioners, Mr. Patrick Cummin, in his Report made a most remarkable observation, that it was dangerous to neglect the education of a people, but at the present time it was not less dangerous to call into existence a multitude of schools, and to place in them teachers with inadequate salaries, uncomfortable homes, and precarious tenure of office; they would be filled with discontent and even tempted to disloyalty; and so long as the school teachers were dissatisfied, the pupils would imbibe the bitterness of their instructors. A similar opinion was given by another Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Jack. Nor was there proof wanting of the state of things which was thus referred to and described, for 47 national schoolmasters had been arrested on suspicion of Fenianism. He was convinced that as long as we dealt with Irish difficulties bit by bit, we were likely to undo a great deal of what we were doing, and we were likely to have to supplement our work by other work which might cause trouble. Here was a simple matter, easily within reach, and yet at the root of much trouble, and he hoped the Government would take steps as early as possible to deal with it. It had been said that the present Government was "charged with a message of peace to Ireland," and he did not think anything would conduce more to peace than the placing of scholars under contented and secure schoolmasters. He was quite aware that there were other matters which were important as affecting the schoolmaster—such as the possession of a house and a garden—but this point was one which urgently required the 600 immediate attention of the Government. He did not wish to deprive managers of the control they now had, for it was above all things important that the system of education in Ireland should possess the confidence of the Roman Catholics, who believed that education and religion must go together; but he wished to commend to the attention of the Government the recommendation of the Primary Education Commissioners, which was that teachers should receive three months' notice of dismissal—he (Mr. Raikes) would be content with one month—and that a teacher should not be treated worse than an ordinary footman, or, say, a Controller of the Admiralty. The teacher ought to receive notice of dismissal, and a copy of it ought to be sent to the Board; and, if the causes alleged were found insufficient or unreasonable, the person who had given that notice ought to be bound to pay some compensation—say three or six months' salary—something, at all events, which it would not be impossible for a man to pay if he conscientiously wished to get rid of a teacher, and at the same time something which would make a man careful how he gratified an outburst of temper. Of one thing he was confident, and that was, that so long as the Irish schoolmasters were disaffected so long would the people of Ireland be disaffected too. We might disestablish churches and interfere with landlords, but no good could be done in a country the educated classes of which smarted under a sense of oppression, which it was the duty of Parliament to remedy. As the Resolution of which he had given notice referred to a Return which the noble Lord the Chief Secretary had kindly given him, he did not now propose to move it.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that after carefully listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Chester, he was unable to discover upon what grounds he had thought it necessary to call attention to the subject on the present occasion. The hon. Member deprecated dealing with Irish difficulties bit by bit, yet he had taken up a part only of one subject affecting Ireland; and as it was certain that attention must be called to the Report of the Royal Commission on Primary Education, and also to the grievances which had been urged by schoolmasters, he was at a loss to 601 discover why the hon. Member should have seized this opportunity to urge one grievance only, and that a grievance respecting which a considerable number of the schoolmasters were anxious to withdraw their complaints. He (the Marquess of Hartington) declined to be drawn into a partial discussion of this question. As he had stated in reply to a Question some time ago, the Government had under their consideration the memorial presented by the teachers, and the suggestions which had been made upon it by the Board of National Education in Ireland; it would be his duty either in moving the Education Vote, or upon some other and earlier occasion, to state the views of the Government upon the subject; and he did not think there would be any convenience, but rather the contrary, in anticipating now what it would be his duty to state hereafter. Certainly the conclusion at which the hon. Member arrived was far more moderate than the tone of his speech had led him to anticipate. Having spoken of the power of dismissal by managers having been used in a harsh and improper manner, and of the existence and exercise of such power being inconsistent with the independence of school teachers, the hon. Gentleman ended by supporting the recommendation of the Commissioners, who, on the whole, thought it best that effective control over schoolmasters should remain in the hands of the managers. There was very little difference of opinion among the Commissioners, who all thought that the powers of managers should remain very much what they were now, and also that national school teachers should not be treated harshly any more than any other classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The question was, were they so treated? He (the Marquess of Hartington) was astonished at the extreme absence of evidence on this point. The hon. Member said that since he gave notice of his Motion he had received numerous complaints from schoolmasters. Well, he should like to know what class of public servants could have notice given of an intention to ventilate their grievances without the hon. Member who had given the notice being inundated with their complaints. The whole subject of primary education had been inquired into by a Commission; and one would have supposed the hon. Member would have been able to 602 strengthen his case by reference to a mass of evidence taken by that Commission. But the hon. Member had been obliged to confine himself to the Reports of one or two of the Assistant Commissioners; Mr. Jack, one of the witnesses of the hon. Member, did not go any great length in speaking of the hardships of teachers; and of the other Commissioners, most of them alleged no case of capricious treatment; and all concurred in the opinion that power should remain substantially in the hands of managers. He should be ready to consider any suggestions for improving the position of the teachers without materially impairing the control exercised by the managers; but he must express his strong opinion that any measure which would weaken the interest and the effective control of the managers, upon which the efficiency of the national system must depend, would be an unmixed evil, and would, therefore, be one to which the Government could give no countenance or support.
§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATErose because he feared, from the remarks of the Chief Secretary, that another year might pass without any substantial improvement having been made in the position of teachers, although, in his opinion their case was one which required immediate consideration. The hon. Member for Chester had merely touched upon the fringe of an immense subject, and had ministered in homœopathic doses to patients who were suffering severely. There could be no worse policy than to give these teachers insufficient salaries, and to take no steps for their comfort and for their ultimate superannuation. He hoped the managers of these schools would have some limitation placed on their power of dismissal, and that at any rate three months' notice should be given. At the same time he could not approve of any scheme by which the managers would be forced to give up all control over the teachers. It was important that something of a substantial character should be done in this question, and that it should be done during the present year.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) seemed to have discovered a mare's nest, for he had made the grand discovery that the principal grievance of the Irish schoolmasters was that the 47 who were ar- 603 rested for Fenianism did not receive a month's notice. It seemed to him that the principal object of the hon. Member was to read to the House the letter of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clogher, asking the managers of a school to call to account a teacher, and the article of The Freeman's Journal supporting the Bishop. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Bishop would not be justified in writing that letter in case the teacher had moved a resolution in opposition to the Report of the Commissioners. The evidence contained in that Report showed that the authority of school managers over teachers was exercised in a fair and just spirit. It did not disclose a single case of hardship; and he thought that the school managers, who had very frequently themselves founded and maintained their schools, and who were deeply interested in defending the public from misconduct on the part of the masters, ought not to be deprived of their rights as managers.