HL Deb 19 February 1883 vol 276 cc286-93
THE EARL OF LONGFORD,

in moving that there be laid before the House— Copy of Rule 72 of the Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland; Copy of letter, dated 8th November 1882, from the Earl of Longford to the Lord President of the Council (on appeal from a decision of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland) respecting the appointment of a sister of mercy as teacher in a national school open to non-Catholic children; and a Copy of any reply thereto; said, he wished to ask whether such an appointment as that mentioned in his Notice was not contrary both to the spirit and letter of the regulations of the National Board in Ireland? The rule was that there should be no exhibition of any religious emblem or any teaching in the school-house allotted to secular instruction to which children or parent could take objection. On this understanding proprietors had promoted and established schools, and clergymen had raised subscriptions; workhouse schools and convent schools, under special rules, had been admitted into the National system. It recently came to his knowledge that a sister of mercy had been appointed teacher by the Board of Guardians in the school at Granard, and that the appointment had been approved by the Local Government Board. It appeared to him that this was in defiance both of the spirit and letter of the rules. He applied to the Commissioners of Education concerning the matter. Their first answer was rather a caricature. They referred him to the rule under which members of a religious community were permitted to be teachers in convent schools—an answer which was irrelevant, as this was not a convent school. He succeeded in obtaining a second reply, which was that the case had been fully considered, and that Rule 72 had no application; and, of course, it had not if it were not applied. Then he applied to the Lord Lieutenant, who saw no reason to question the view of the Commissioners. He (the Earl of Longford), however, saw great reason. He found himself in some difficulty as to further proceedings; for when he wished to appeal from the Lord Lieutenant to the Lord President of the Council, he found that, under the somewhat unusual arrangement made by the Government, they were the same man. The Lord Lieutenant's Irish duties being the more urgent, he was detained in Ireland; but he kept a ghost in London, if such a description might be excused, and the ghost told him that the case could only be disposed of in Dublin. He then wished to apply to the Head of the Government, and found he was away on sick leave, but was apparently represented by a disconsolate widow, who carried on the business. There was little prospect of a satisfactory answer from that quarter. He, therefore, had no alternative but to bring the case before their Lordships. He fully recognized the devotion of sisters of mercy to the work of piety and charity that they undertook; but they were the active agents of an active Church, and they were disqualified for the position of teachers in mixed schools, to be attended by both Catholic and Protestant children. He had, therefore, given Notice of the Motion which stood in his name.

Moved that there be laid before this House—

Copy of Rule 72, of the Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland:

Copy of letter, dated 8th November 1882, from the Earl of Longford to the Lord President of the Council (on appeal from a decision of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland) respecting the appointment of a sister of mercy as teacher in a national school open to non-Catholic children:

Copy of any reply thereto.—(The Earl of Longford.)

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, he was willing to admit the zeal and devotion of sisters of mercy; but it was inconvenient that the rule excluding all persons in religious orders should be evaded in schools attended by a minority of Protestant children who, save at the sacrifice of their religious convictions, would be excluded if the teaching were to be conducted by sisters of mercy. Another reason for excluding these ladies from public institutions was that they did not admit any lay authority; and if they were called upon to observe the rules laid down, they referred you to the Bishop or Lady Superior, saying that these were the only authorities they recognized. He had known one case in which two ladies entirely repudiated the authority of the Guardians, who were obliged to get rid of them. In another case some sisters, being allowed access to a prison, desired a warder to call all the prisoners together in order that they might address them. He could not do so. They appealed to the priest, who abused the warder in the public street. The priest, being chaplain of the gaol, on being called to account for this, apologized. This was a proof of the danger which existed, and which could not possibly be got over, because these ladies repudiated all authority except that of their own Superior or Bishop. He hoped the Government would sustain the system of National education, which had worked well, and had kept the schools free from religious acrimony.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)

said, the noble Earl had got rather into cross purposes with Departments of the Government in his correspondence on this question, especially as his noble Friend assumed that there was some appeal from the Education Department in Ireland to the Education Department in England; but that idea, as he had explained in his correspondence with the noble Earl, was absolutely without foundation. There was no sort of connection between the two bodies. When the noble Earl in a manner appealed to the President of the Council, he (the Lord President) told him that the Committee of Council in this country had no right to express an opinion in the matter, or to answer any question regarding the educational administration in Ireland. The case lay within a small compass, and turned upon the interpretation of Rule 72, of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland. He did not agree with the noble Earl when he said that the first answer of the Commissioners referring to Rule 55, was a caricature, although it certainly was not a complete answer. The rule had reference to convent schools, and the noble Earl did not appear to be aware that those schools formed no exception whatever to the general system and the general rules of the National Board in Ireland. The rule upon which the noble Earl so confidently put an interpretation different from that of the National Board, was one which he could not help thinking the noble Earl had not studied with sufficient care. The 72nd Rule was in these terms— No emblems or symbols of a denominational nature shall be exhibited in the schools during the hours of united instruction, nor will the Commissioners in future grant aid to any schools which exhibit on the exterior of the buildings any such emblems. That rule had never been interpreted and never was laid down for the purpose of forbidding a person belonging to a religious order of the Church of Rome to wear a religious dress in a school. It could not bear such an interpretation, because the convent schools were just as much subject to this rule and to every other rule of the Board as other schools in Ireland were; and the convent schools had been in connection with the National Board for the last 50 years—having been brought into connection with that Board by the late Lord Derby when Chief Secretary for Ireland. There could be no doubt that the convent schools, of which there was a large number, had done, and were doing, a vast amount of good to a population substantially Roman Catholic, with a mere sprinkling, here and there, of Protestant children. It was well known that the schools were conducted with great devotion by those excellent and admirable ladies, and it was equally well known that when Protestant children attended such schools, as they did in certain small minorities, they-had the same protection against proselytism which they enjoyed elsewhere. In fact, no case had ever been alleged of any Protestant child being subjected to attempts of that kind to change its faith. If such, danger had been found to be unreal in the case of convent schools, there could, he thought, be very little danger to the faith of any Protestant child who might stray into the workhouse school at Granard. The question raised by the noble Earl was whether the Granard poorhouse school had broken any of the rules of the National Board. The Commissioners of National Education contended, and in this they were supported by the Lord Lieutenant, that the rule which he had read had no application whatever to the matter in hand. Teachers in workhouse schools were appointed by the Guardians them- selves, subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board, and their connection with the National Board was simply one of inspection. It was quite clear that the Commissioners had violated no rule, and that in retaining the poor-house school in question in connection with their Board they had acted strictly within their rights. He should be glad to give the noble Earl the Papers moved for if the noble Earl would change the form of his Motion, because, in its present shape, it would not give the facts of the case on both sides.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

desired to offer a few words in reply. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the Lord Privy Seal, it still remained quite clear to his mind that the compact which had been arrived at on the question had been broken. This rule not only applied to emblems outside the school, but also inside. With regard to the sisters of mercy, he had not, before that evening, heard of any other appointment of a similar character. He maintained that the very conspicuous religious dress of a sister of charity was a denominational emblem, and the rule distinctly forbad the employment of any such emblem. The reason why no special rule had been inserted with respect to religious dress of teachers was that it was thought absolutely impossible that such an appointment could be made. It was a total revolution of the existing system. He should certainly recur to the subject, for, unless a protest was maintained, such appointments would again be made, and it would be said that the previous appointments had been tacitly accepted.

LORD O'HAGAN

said, that as a Commissioner of National Education, who had held that office the past quarter of a century, he was of opinion that there had been no breach of compact, or any novelty of practice introduced in this case. Section 72 by no means bore the construction which the noble Earl had sought to place on it. The system now prevailing had prevailed for the past 50 years. When the late Lord Derby, as Chief Secretary, conferred the great boon upon Ireland of a separate religious and a combined secular instruction, thereby avoiding the curse of proselytism which had so long laid upon Ireland, it was agreed that ladies belonging to religious orders should be admitted as teachers. If the construc- tion of the noble Earl was adopted there would be an end of conventual education in Ireland. The rule provided against the exhibition of religious emblems or symbols during the hours of united instruction. A nun's dress was not an emblem or symbol. The rule had already been strictly enforced, even to the iconoclastic extent of excluding the emblem of Redemption, the exhibition of which disentitled to a grant. If the noble Earl's wishes were carried out there would be no school in Ireland from which nuns would not be excluded. Could anyone assert that such a result would be in the interests of education? Those schools were admirable and unsurpassed by any schools in existence. His noble Friend on the Cross Benches bad admitted that the schools were excellent.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I said the nuns were excellent teachers of Roman Catholics.

LORD O'HAGAN

said, that the adoption of the construction contended for would be a death-blow to the existing system, and would interfere with the performance of services which were beyond mice and beyond praise.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

said, the noble Lord who had just spoken had drawn a red herring across the trail. No doubt the convent schools were doing excellent work in Ireland; but the noble Lord (Lord O'Hagan) was surely aware that, as a matter of fact, there was considerable difference between the convent schools and others in that country. His noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Longford) had not alluded to these conventual schools. The question was not the character of the nuns or their teaching, but the construction of Section 72. But if Section 72 was not clear, Section 71 explicitly forbad any teaching which would be known to belong to a particular religious body. He did not wish to be supposed to sympathize with his noble Friend's opinion on the subject. He did not object to the sisters teaching in workhouse schools; but the question now was the construction of rules, and he did not think his noble Friend's argument had been fairly met. There had really been a new departure, and it might be a good departure; but that question was a largo one, and he did not see his way to coining to a final opinion without careful examination.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that all his knowledge upon this subject was derived from listening to that debate; but if he rightly understood the matter, it appeared to him that the whole question lay in a small compass. The noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) relied on one rule, while the other noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick) referred to another rule altogether. It was not, therefore, extraordinary that his noble Friends should have referred to the rule to which the question was directed. If that rule applied to any school connected with the National Board, it applied to every school attached to that Board. Therefore, it would apply to convent schools, some of which appeared to have been long connected with the National Board, and it could not be said that some new construction had now been placed on Rule 72. He (the Lord Chancellor) certainly thought it was paradoxical to say that a nun was an emblem or symbol of a religious denomination, or that, by wearing her usual dress, she was "exhibiting" any such emblem or symbol. Upon that point he agreed with what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The only real question must be whether it was expedient or not that in certain cases like the present the teaching of these ladies should be allowed in any national schools. If it was expedient in some conventual schools—which did not seem to be disputed—he was unable, at present, to see why it should be thought improper in other cases, such as this was stated to be, in which there were none but Roman Catholic children.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

wished to point out, in answer to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) did not found his argument exclusively on Rule 27; he objected to the employment of a nun in her conventual dress as a teacher as a departure from the general principle of the National system of education, and quoted Rule 27 as that most pertinent to the case. It was well known there were people who held that the National system, as an undenominational one, was a sham, and this matter would tend to confirm it. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord O'Hagan) could hardly have forgotten that there were certain rules distinctly applicable to con- ventual schools, so that the rules applying to the general schools of the country would not affect convent schools. At any rate, he considered that the practice of nuns teaching in the national schools in their conventual garb should not be permitted.

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.