CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.

HC Deb 12 August 1878 vol 242 cc1776-828

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

MR. J. LOWTHER

, in moving that the Bill, as amended, be now considered, said, he desired to inform the House of the names of the Commissioners selected under the Bill. Giving them in alphabetical order, they were—The Eight Hon. John Thomas Ball, the Earl of Belmore, Professor Molloy, the O'Conor Don, the Eight Hon. Christopher Palles, Professor Porter, and Professor Salmon. These names required no introduction, still less any explanation from him. Hon. Members, however, might be struck with the omission of one name, which he believed all of them would have desired to have seen in the list— he meant that of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). He regretted to have to inform the House that the hon. and learned Gentleman, although most desirous, as he always had been, to give all the assistance in his power to the promotion of the cause of education in Ireland, felt himself precluded by his multifarious engagements, and also, unfortunately, by the state of his health, from undertaking the duties of a Commissioner.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

, who had a Notice on the Paper for the consideration of the Amendments that day three months, said, that the Bill had been promised to Parliament in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech at the commencement of the Session, and now they were asked to discuss some of the main provisions of the measure on the 12th of August, when a large number of Members had deserted their duty, when there was only an attenuated House, and when, if it were not for the serried ranks of Irish Members opposite, who had so loyally obeyed the call of their distinguished Leader, there would hardly be a quorum. Not only the House, but the people of Ireland, it seemed to him, had not been properly treated by the Government in this matter. Unfortunately, the form of government of the Episcopal Church of Ireland was such that neither by Courts, Synod, or meetings, had there been an opportunity of testing the opinion of that religious Body since the introduction of the Bill. Upon the second reading, the hon. Member for Dungannon (Mr. T. A. Dickson), speaking on behalf of one section of Presbyterians, said their support of the measure was all but unanimous, and challenged the right of himself (Mr. Lewis) to speak as a representative of that Body. The hon. Member was mistaken in supposing he had made any such claim. At that time, public opinion was doubtful and quiescent; but since the Bill had passed Committee a portion of the Protestant community of Ireland had not been slow to express their opinion upon the character of the Bill. On Thursday week last the Presbytery of Belfast, which represented 60 congregations, had, with but one dissentient, passed a vote of condemnation of the Bill. The Ballymena Presbytery, also a great centre of Presbyterianism in the county of Antrim, unanimously condemned it; as did also that of Glandermot, near Londonderry. But more than that, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, presided over by Dr. Porter, one of the most accomplished, experienced, and judicious scholars to be found in any of the Churches of Ireland, came unanimously to a resolution adverse to the Bill. That was the product of the last few days; and if another month could elapse, the measure would have received the almost unanimous condemnation of the whole Presbyterian Body, which comprised nearly half of the Protestant communions of Ireland. This was the result of the extraordinary course which the Government had pursued, keeping back the Bill until the House of Commons was attenuated and in the power of the Government, aided by their new allies and united Home Rule Party. He hoped the results of the alliance would not be so disastrous as some had anticipated; but when they saw the Government and the Home Rulers shaking hands over the dead body of the mixed system of education in Ireland he could not congratulate the House or the country upon it. The Government in Committee refused to admit anything like a real Conscience Clause, wishing Clause 7 to be read in that sense, although it was altogether different to that in the English and Scotch Elementary Education Acts. This Bill dealt with public money; because, by the Irish Church Disendowment Act, these funds were withdrawn from private use, and from both the old corporation and the new corporation of the Church of Ireland. The Disendowment Act, however, expressly stated the purposes to which those funds should be applied; and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), in his speech proposing that Act, distinctly refused to allow them to be applied to educational purposes, as in that case they would be likely to lead to sectarian bitterness and party strife. The opponents of the Bill had been beaten on the point of the Conscience Clause and of inspection. His third objection to the measure was that it was a direct step towards concurrent endowment, and therefore was a reversal of the principle of legislation that had been acted upon for the last quarter of a century. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had suggested that the sting would be taken out of the Bill if the results fees were dispensed with, and the whole of the money spent in Exhibition Prizes. How did the Government treat that suggestion? Not a word was said upon it by the Government, and they treated it with scorn and indignation. The fact was that this Bill was nothing less than the precursor of a University Bill drawn upon the same lines which had been promised to a certain section of that House, and to be introduced either next year or the year after; and as it was his intention to test the opinion of the House on several of the leading Amendments, he would not waste 10 minutes by asking the House to divide at this stage. With reference to those Amendments, he would read an extract from a letter of the 5th of August, and dated from this august Assembly, from the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), which had called back the Irish Members from their Recess in such numbers. The letter said— You will perceive by the Notice Paper that the opponents of the Bill will endeavour to secure its rejection; but, failing that, to carry-certain sectarian Amendments—[Mr. BUTT: Hear, hear!]—which will entirely change the character of the measure. He would relieve the hon. and learned Member from any apprehension on the first point, by stating that at present he should not divide the House against the Bill; but should it pass the present stage without amendment, he should feel it his duty to give hon. Members an opportunity of voting against the Bill by moving its rejection on the third reading. He denied that the Amendment of which he had given Notice was of a sectarian character. It was a mere copy, mutatis mutandis, of the Conscience Clause, in the English Elementary Act of 1870.

MR. SPEAKER

The Amendments are not before the House. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Question.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, he had no intention of discussing the Amendments. He only wished to say their object was to keep an open door for every one of these schools; to protect the pupils from proselytism when there; and to make sure they would have all the advantages from the expenditure of those public funds to which all classes were alike entitled. The Government had now, at the last moment, under the great pressure which had been put upon them, given the House the names of the Commissioners. He only knew the gentlemen named in a very general and public way; and, on the whole, he thought they might be taken as a fair representation of public opinion, with the exception that whereas there were three Roman Catholics and three Episcopalians on the Commission there was but one Presbyterian, although the Presbyterian Body comprised half the Protestant population. But although he might disagree from the leading principles of the Bill, he was satisfied that Her Majesty's Government had introduced it with the most bonâ fide intention to improve intermediate education in Ireland. In his opinion, it was a mistake not to require each State-aided school in Ireland to receive day boarders, who should be admitted at certain times when there would be no fear of proselytism by either religious teaching, services, or symbols. He objected to the measure, however, not so much in itself, but because of what it led to; and the Roman Catholics themselves looked upon it as the beginning of a system of direct endowment of denominational education. A Belfast paper, which had been sent anonymously to him, stated— It is, no doubt, a fact that the Roman Catholics will reap largo advantages from the Bill; but their anxiety is more as to what it promises than as to what it gives—the richer gifts of which it is the herald—for this Bill does not cover the whole ground. It is the mere fringe; but before the larger questions come to be settled, the people will be educated. Yes; educated by a Tory Government— by the successors of the late Lord Derby, who introduced the mixed system. Would the Government throw away this splendid heritage, which was connected with no particular Party, and deliberately break down the hedge which surrounded it? The Government now had an opportunity of repudiating any such policy, and he hoped they would avail themselves of it. He was led to understand that this Bill was likely to be the precursor of a University Bill. It did a good thing in a bad way. That being so, the duty rested with those who thought there was something to be preserved in the education of Ireland to resist the measure. Members had been taken by surprise at the end of the Session, in being asked to reverse the policy sanctioned by Parliament for many years. For himself, whatever might be the result, he would never regret having lifted up his humble voice in striving to induce the House to amend the Bill in a most important direction. Even though he should vote alone, he would give his vote against what he considered was the beginning of a downward and perilous course.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, that the hon. Member for Dungannon (Mr. T. A. Dickson), who was unavoidably absent, had written to him to explain that what he stated on the second reading was that it was a most remarkable—he would not say a suspicious—fact, but a fact eminently worthy of the attention of the House, that of all the Irish Presbyterian Gentlemen sitting in that House, not one could be procured to get up and attack this measure except the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry, who was not himself an Irish Presbyterian.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Charles Lewis) had again referred to the fact that he, having on the second reading of the Bill trespassed on the indulgence of the House for some considerable time, did not feel himself justified in making another speech when the discussion did not extend to a late period of the evening. On a subsequent occasion, he explained that no disrespect or discourtesy was intended either to him or to any other Member of the House by the course he had adopted. His hon. Friend had, however, now repeated the allegation that he was wanting in respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone). Indeed, his hon. Friend said he had treated the observations of the right hon. Gentleman with scorn and indignation. Now, he entirely demurred to the application of those terms. In point of fact, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a warm eulogy of almost every line of the Bill. It was an expression, exchoed by those who sat around him, of gratitude to the Government for having dealt with this question. In these circumstances, he felt he should not be justified in detaining the House by making a reply to a speech with almost every sentence of which he himself agreed.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

spoke in high terms of the appointment of the Members of the Board, stating that they were gentlemen of general ability, who possessed the confidence of the country, and who had had large experience in dealing with public questions. This matter of public confidence in the Commissioners was, he considered, of far greater importance than many hon. Members supposed; and he believed that they enjoyed the thorough confidence of the people of Ireland. It ought to be remembered that former educational schemes had failed in Ireland, because they were not brought in in a proper manner. In regard to the present scheme, he thought that the Government had acted wisely in most of what they had done. He quite joined in the regret of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) as to the absence of a Presbyterian Member on the Board. He suggested, with great deference, that there ought to be two paid Commissioners appointed—one of whom should be a Catholic, and another should be a member of one of the Protestant forms of religion—and he thought it was due to the Presbyterians that one of their number should be appointed. The great opposition to this Bill had come from a certain section of the Presbyterians in the North; but he, speaking there as a Catholic, begged to say that the spirit of liberality and fairness in which its provisions would be exercised would show that the suspicions entertained of his Catholic fellow-countrymen were unfounded.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Londonderry for having again pointed out the direction in which this Bill went. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not desire to withhold a single shilling of the proposed grant from the encouragement of intermediate education in Ireland; but this was a case in which it was possible to season a gift with what might be fairly described as an element of poison. The hon. Member for Londonderry spoke of the Amendments he had attempted to make in the Bill in Committee; but he had said nothing of the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) — an Amendment which he (Mr. Newdegate) intended to submit to the House in the present stage of the Bill. That Amendment was directed against the latter part of the Bill, without interfering with the first and the main principle of the Bill—the proposed foundation of scholarships and rewards for the acquisition of knowledge by the middle classes of Ireland. With that, the Amendment he intended to propose would not interfere; but it struck at the second part of the Bill, which proposed the payment by results to the managers of schools in which successful candidates for prizes were educated. Let the House observe the principle which was involved in this proposal. Fifty, at least, of the schools which it was proposed by this Bill to endow were known to be Conventual or Monastic Institutions, and the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), when alluding to this subject in 1874, said that he did not urge this proposal of payment to the managers of these schools, because that must inevitably raise the question of concurrent endowment. The Lord Chancellor, in proposing this Bill "elsewhere," said that it was directly connected with future measures for what he called "University Reform in Ireland." Therefore, if the principle of concurrent endowment was allowed to remain in this Bill, that was obviously the principle which it was intended to transfer to University Education in Ireland. This they had on the authority of the author of the Bill himself. Now, he had given Notice of an Amendment, upon which he should presently ask the opinion of the House, and he desired to repeat that his object was that the principle of the Maynooth Grant should not be renewed; but that the principle upon which the Queen's Colleges in Ireland were founded should be adhered to and extended by the operation of this Bill. He remembered the establishment of the Maynooth Grant in 1845. He remembered, also, the establishment of the Queen's Colleges. For nearly 30 years the Maynooth Grant continued to be a bone of contention and a source of discord. The principle upon which the Queen's Colleges were founded was completely different, was thoroughly consistent with the principle of the Irish national system of primary education; though the Queen's Colleges had not been so successful as they might have been, but for the bitter opposition of the successor of the lamented Archbishop Murray, the enlightened Roman Catholic Archbishop, who consented to the principle of the Queen's Colleges. Had it not been for the bitter opposition of Cardinal Cullen, those Colleges would have been more successful than they had been; still, they had been successful. But the principle introduced in the latter part of this Bill was a different principle. It was the principle of the Maynooth Grant; it was fraught with all the disturbing influences which had been incident to the existence of that Grant; until at last, for the sake of peace, Parliament commuted it under the Act for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Protestant Church in Ireland; commuted it under a promise that the principle of it should no more be renewed than the principle of the establishment of the Protestant Church in Ireland. He looked upon this portion of the Bill with the deepest suspicion, and for this reason—that it was the sequence to a system of agitation in this House—a system of agitation which Parliament had had reason to lament; a system of obstruction in this House which had taken the place of external agitation, and had proved highly detrimental to the character of the House. With the permission of the House, he would state a little more fully why he objected to the proposed renewal of the principle of the Maynooth Grant, as contained in this Bill, remembering that, out of the House, and especially in Ireland, it would be represented that this concession was the fruit of agitation, the fruit of obstruction. How did Mr. O'Connell receive the intelligence, in 1845, that the Maynooth Grant was to be enlarged and made permanent by Sir Robert Peel? He (Mr. Newdegate) had quoted the passage which he was about to read before in that House; but he would now quote it again. Mr. O'Connell received a copy of the Maynooth Bill in Conciliation Hall, where he had organized the Repeal agitation, and these were the terms in which he expressed his gratitude— I would not, I confess, go to this length when I came into this room to-day; for I had a little inkling that there was some trick under all this liberality; but my friend, Dr. Gray, brought me the Act of Parliament, and I read it in my seat here, and I proclaim it excellent in all its parts. [Cheers.] But is this to make us give up agitation? [Cries of'No; we will die first,' and cheers.] I do not moan to quarrel with anyone who differs in opinion from me on any subject; still less am I inclined to quarrel with anyone who thinks with me that it was the Repeal agitation that produced this change in Sir Robert Peel with reference to Maynooth. [Cheers.] Agitation, I thank you. [Cheers.] Conciliation Hall, I am obliged to you. [Cheers.] Repeal Association, Maynooth ought to pray for you. [Loud cheering.] There is a story told of the officers of the Irish Brigade. As long as a young man who came into the French Army, as a cadet, conducted himself well, he was left a cadet; so they always found it necessary to become a little riotous to get promoted to the rank of officer. [Laughter.] [Cheers from the Irish Benches.] Yes, he (Mr. Newdegate) perfectly understood that cheer. Mr. O'Connell continued— We, in Conciliation Hall, represent the officer. The Irish cadets understand the policy of misconducting themselves. This is a boon to us to misbehave in future, and we are too honest not to give them the price for their money. [Cheers and Laughter.] When they tell us that we should thank Sir Robert Peel, and the 200 myrmidons that go with him from one side of the House to the other, I say, Thank Conciliation Hall! Thank Agitation! [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House the other day that he had viewed obstruction in the House more leniently than most men; and he (Mr. Newdegate) defied the right hon. Gentleman to escape from the inference which would be drawn in Ireland, that this renewal of the principle of the Maynooth Grant—this connection of the administration of public money with the internal system and discipline of Monastic and Conventual Institutions—had been made in the same sense as Mr. O'Connell understood the gift of the Grant to Maynooth. He remembered that the speech of Mr. O'Connell and the passing of the Maynooth Bill were followed by two years of such outrage in Ireland, such an amount of murder, and such a disgraceful condition that, although he (Mr. Newdegate) voted against a Coercion Bill when it was first proposed by Sir Robert Peel, he was compelled to vote for a similar Bill in 1847. Now this, he contended, was the amari aliquid in the Bill before the House. He would willingly promote intermediate education in Ireland; but if the Government were about to renew the principle of the Maynooth Grant, the connection of their officers with the methods of teaching and discipline of these Roman Catholic institutions, there was some reason for the Earl of Beaconsfield appealing to the Conservative deputations who lately waited upon him to suppress what he indicated as eccentricities, and to apply themselves to the organization of opinion, and so manifest their devotion to him personally, that he might be able to do anything and go anywhere. They might now have a shrewd suspicion of the sense of which this advice was given, and of the direction in which the Earl of Beaconsfield was going. He trusted, however, that when the House proceeded with the further consideration of the Bill, Her Majesty's Government would yet be disposed to free the measure then under consideration from the principle of the Maynooth Grant, which was directly involved in that part of the Bill which came under the deceptive term of "payment by results." He hoped the Government might be disposed to concede the Amendment, which he, as a humble, but consistently Conservative, Member of that House, intended to propose; but if they did not, they might rely upon it that they had not heard the last of that which, sooner or later, they would find to be a fatal gift.

SIR JOHN LESLIE

considered that the names of the Commissioners would give general satisfaction to the people of Ireland. He did not share in those exaggerated fears which were expressed by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) or the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), in regard to this question of intermediate education, but looked upon the system as one of progress and enlightenment. He looked forward with hope to see the measure carried out in the spirit in which it was conceived, and that it should not be allowed to drift in the same direction as the National School Board had allowed the national system to drift, which was away from its fundamental rules, and, as he thought in that instance, to the great disadvantage of education in some parts of the country.

MR. COURTNEY

, in reply to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, pointed out that the most striking part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had been directed to the payment of result fees. The Chief Secretary had stated that the speech did not touch the vital principle of the Bill. He therefore hoped, when the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) came to be discussed, the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be prepared to strike out the section of the Bill authorizing the payment of such fees.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he should he delighted to see intermediate education introduced into Ireland to all classes and to all religions; but it seemed to him that if the Bill was intended for the benefit of those who could not send their children a long distance to be educated, the object sought would not be gained. He considered the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) rather extraordinary—that one of the two paid Commissioners should be a Roman Catholic and the other a Presbyterian, thus excluding every member of the disestablished Church from any share in the administration of the funds which were originally the property of the Church to which he himself belonged. He was afraid that the system of payment by results would have this effect— that the teachers would direct all their attention to the clever boys, to the neglect of the great body of the pupils.

LORD CHARLES BERESFORD

congratulated the Government upon having introduced a Bill which seemed to satisfy almost everybody. He hoped they would follow it up by a measure providing for denominational education and the endowment of a Catholic University.

Motion agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered.

New Clause (Reports and accounts), —(Mr. James Lowther,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

moved the following clause:—

(Regulations for conduct of schools.) The Board shall not make any payment to the managers of any school, unless it shall he satisfied of the compliance of the managers of such school with the following conditions:— (1.) It shall not he required, as a condition, of any child being admitted into or continuing in the school that he shall attend or abstain from attending any place of religious worship, or that he shall attend any religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects in the school or elsewhere from which observance or instruction he may be withdrawn by the parent, or that he shall, if withdrawn by his parent, attend the school on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs; (2.) The time or times during which any religious observance is practised, or instruction in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school, shall be either at the beginning or at the end, or at the beginning and the end of such meeting, and shall be inserted in a time table to be approved by the Board, and to be kept permanently and conspicuously affixed in every schoolroom, and any scholar may be withdrawn by his parent from such observances or instruction without forfeiting any of the other benefits of the school. The hon. Member said, he should think it his duty to take the opinion of the House on the clause. It was taken almost verbatim from the Elementary Education Act, and, therefore, came with an imprimatur which, at all events, would be satisfactory. What had the Legislature done to give effect to the Conscience Clause in England and Scotland? The Conscience Clause — or, rather, the Conscience Regulation—in Ireland did not exist upon legislation, but upon the rules and regulations made by the National Board. The regulations under the management of the Board system in Ireland as regarded elementary education were so generally analogous to those in operation in England and Scotland, that one might venture to regard them all as under one heading. They required that the time set apart for religious worship and religious observance should be either at the commencement or at the end, or partly at the commencement and partly at the end, and that the rest of the day should be solely devoted to secular education. The first part of the clause said that no payment should be made to the managers of any school unless the Board should be satisfied that no pupil at the school should be permitted to remain in attendance at any religious instruction which the parents would not sanction. If it was intended to set apart a certain portion of the day, what was the difficulty in saying so in so many words? It was intended to give the parent apparent protection without any real protection being afforded. For all that appeared in that clause, there might not be a single school in Ireland receiving benefits under this Act which was not purely of a denominational character; whereas the policy of the Legislature under the English and Scotch Act, and the Irish national system, had been to keep open every school endowed with public money, so that it might be available by members of every religious denomination. He would assume that the Government wished to keep up the principle upon which the Legislature had uniformly acted—that where public money was voted for school purposes, it should be open to the whole community; but this clause did not attempt anything of that kind, and in its present shambling form, it seemed as if it had been framed for the express purpose of not meeting the case. At a deputation to the Lord Chancellor, the statement was made that the clause had been framed on the precedents of the endowed schools; but these precedents dealt with private endowments, and the State had no right to interfere with them. The Irish Church Act of 1869 required that the Church surplus should be, in the main, appropriated for the relief of persons suffering from unavoidable calamity or misfortune. That directly pointed to the relief of lunatics, or persons suffering from intense poverty and distress. If it had been applied in that manner, it would have relieved the rates; and, therefore, in taking that money and appropriating it for that purpose, they were only trifling, shifting it from one portion of the national pocket to the other; but the Irish Church was treated as a corporation of a private character, which ought to be disendowed. Therefore, it seemed to him that they were dealing with it much in the same way as if they were voting so much of the grant to Maynooth for the purposes of public education. He asked the House, accordingly, to pass a real Conscience Clause, not one which was a mere name and. a shadow. There was no provision in the Bill requiring any school to be kept open or to receive a single day scholar.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

, in seconding the Motion, said, that while it had always been part of his political creed that there should be no distinction between Catholics and Protestants, he was not prepared to say that Catholics should have advantages which Protestants did not enjoy in any part of the United Kingdom. The clause was found to answer in England and Scotland, and he could not conceive any reason why it should not be applied to Ireland. The clause in the Bill was not a Conscience Clause at all. It was a mere sham. It was competent, as the Bill now stood, to shut a school in the face of any pupil whose parents objected to the religious observances in the school, and so to exclude him altogether.

New Clause—(Mr. Charles Lewis,)— brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. J. P. CORRY

said, that knowing the feeling which existed amongst the Presbyterians in the North of Ireland, he felt bound to support the Amendment. No doubt, the Bill was introduced to improve intermediate education; but he thought that no child should be shut out of the benefit of the grants made under the Bill. That could not be secured unless the Conscience Clause was made stringent; and he should therefore support his hon. Friend if he went to a division, which he hoped he would do.

MR. GREGORY

opposed the clause. The names of the Commissioners had been received with universal approval, and he thought they might be trusted to carry out the Act. He did not believe the Bill contained the principle on which the Maynooth Grant was made. It was a Bill for the promotion of intermediate education in Ireland, and as such must necessarily deal with boarding schools as well as day schools. The proposed new clause said that no school could enter into the competitions provided under the Bill if the children receiving instruction in such school were compelled to attend any place of religious worship. He ventured to think there was hardly any boarding school in this country, and he presumed it was the same in Ireland, where the children were not compelled to attend some place of religious worship, generally such as their parents chose; and, therefore, if the clause was adopted, it would have the effect of shutting out from the competitions any child brought up in a school where religious worship was required.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) had more than once informed the House they were dealing with public money. Just as the county rates in Galway were public money, the Church funds were public money; but in the sense that it was Imperial money the Church surplus was not public money. It was Irish money, raised in Ireland; and he thought, therefore, that it should be exclusively devoted to Irish objects, and that in its disposal deference should be made to the wishes of the Irish people. Now, he might remind the House that when the Bill was in Committee an Amendment to the effect proposed by the hon. Member was rejected by 50 Irish Members to 3. He believed that the Conscience Clause as it stood in the Bill would be quite sufficient for the protection of children; and that the only result of adopting the clause suggested by the hon. Member would be to harass Catholic schools. There was a large Protestant population in Londonderry and Belfast; but there was a much smaller one in the three towns of Galway, Tuam, and Ballinasloe. In each of these towns there was a Protestant school, and the Protestants would not be forced to send their children to Catholic schools. In such circumstances, the new clause could have no useful object. It was said that Presbyterians were anxious for mixed education; but it was not shown that they were placed at any disadvantage by the Conscience Clause already provided. It was all very well for Presbyterians to have less objection than others to mixed education; but that was no reason why they should force it on others. He believed that the Roman Catholics would hardly get their fair share of the grants to be made under the Bill, if that share were tested by numbers. With a few exceptions, hon. Gentlemen did not object to the Roman Catholics deriving this assistance; and he hoped the House would reject an Amendment which would be fatal to the efficiency of the Bill.

MR. MACARTNEY

repudiated the idea that those who approved of the Amendment desired to harass Catholic schools. It was an utterly unfounded accusation. Nothing could be further from his own thoughts than any such intention. The imputation came with a bad grace from those who advocated equal laws for England and Ireland, seeing that the clause was already in operation in England. To say that the same principle should not be applied to Ireland was to deny that the property derived from the disestablishment of the Irish Church was not public property, which it was asserted to be at the time the Act was carried. When it was said that it was peculiarly Irish property because it was paid by Irish land, it must be remembered that the majority of those who paid it would not derive any benefit from the Bill, for they did not belong to the Roman Catholic or the Presbyterian Churches.

SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURT

fully admitted that the surplus of the disestablished Irish Church was public property, and also that, as it was derived from Irish sources, it should be applied to Irish purposes; and the only question was, how was it to be applied? No doubt there had been in this country a strong feeling in favour of an undenominational system of elementary education; but Parliament established what was substantially a denominational system, and that fact materially altered his views as to what ought to be done in regard to Ireland. He could be no party to pressing upon the people of the latter country a system which had not been insisted upon for England. The argument that the present proposal was one for placing Ireland in the same position as England, would be tenable if it were not that the English Conscience Clause was enforced only in elementary schools. It was obvious that intermediate schools must be dealt with in a different manner; and the Government had taken as their model the clause in the English Endowed Schools Act, which was stronger than this clause, for it required that the education to be given should have the sanction of parents. It was of no use imposing conditions that would not be accepted by managers of schools, and they must deal with the facts as they found them existing in Ireland. He should support the clause as it stood in the Bill.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that although denominational education, both in primary schools and at Universities, was assisted in England, the State had required, as a condition of that assistance, that the Conscience Clause and open inspection should be carried out. He admitted, however, with shame and regret, that at the great intermediate public schools of the country attendance at the religious instruction of the Church of England was still required; but those who had conscientiously opposed that restriction upon education in England were perfectly free to claim for Ireland the liberty which they had not been able to obtain for England. He could not understand why the managers of a school receiving public money should refuse to receive a boy professing the religion of the minority. If the parent did not object to send the boy, he did not see why the managers should object. The extreme jealousy which appeared to be felt with regard to this Proviso on the part of managers did show that there would be intruders if there was liberty for parents to send their children. It was not a matter of creed, but of the majority and minority, and they were bound to protect the rights of minorities. He warmly supported the clause of the hon. Member for Londonderry, which he hoped would be pressed to a division.

MR. BUTT

said, if there were a number of Protestants who were anxious—enthusiastic, even—to place their children under the guidance of Roman Catholic teachers, he could understand the clause which had been moved; but it was no such thing. This clause was not a Conscience Clause. A Conscience Clause, according to the meaning he had always understood was attached to it, was a clause introduced for the protection of the child. He said that that subject was fully provided for by the clause which the Bill contained at present; and it would be impossible, he thought, to frame a clause which would more effectually gain that object than the one now contained in the Bill. The clause in the Bill said that a child should not be excluded from the benefits of a secular education, even if that child was prevented from joining in the religious instruction. He asked whether that did not do everything for the child that could be done? He knew it had been objected that there were very few places where there would be children of different persuasions in the same school. He must say that he thought the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Charles Lewis) made a number of regulations vexatiously interfering with the ordinary rules of schools, and doing so in schools in which there was not the remotest chance of children of different religions being educated together. He must, in justice, say that the hon. Member had greatly changed if he wished to vex or harass any human being; but what he wished to point out was that the effect of this new clause would be both harassing and annoying. The Bill was not a measure for the purpose of establishing a great system of undenominational or intermediate education in Ireland. No Government would attempt to do that; but it was a very modest attempt to aid existing institutions—to take the institutions they found there, and to aid them. And how did the Bill propose to aid them? It would aid them by payment by results, and the true test would be, could they encourage education efficiently? The effect of the Amendment would be to exclude at once a large number of schools, because they knew that every Roman Catholic manager would not agree to the test that was proposed in it. He asked the House to say if that was the way in which they would remedy the injustice? There were already Protestant endowments for Protestant education in Ireland. One of the grievances of which Catholics complained was that they had none, and now, when a very poor and small aid was proposed to be given to schools not founded by this House, hon. Gentlemen would pass a rule which would admit Presbyterian and exclude Catholic schools. The great merit of the Bill was that it avoided altogether entering into religious dissensions, and took part with neither denominational or undenominational. It came forward upon that principle, and it said to the managers—"Educate the boy, and you will be paid exactly in proportion as you do so." What should be the wish of every Protestant? Why, it should be to bring education into those schools in which they would tell him there was now only darkness. Didicisse fideliter artes, Emollit mores nec sinit esse feros. Instead, however, of that, by pushing this Amendment, they would, by way of meeting the ignorance which it was said existed in Roman Catholic schools, give them no encouragement whatever. Such a view as that was most bigoted.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

rose to Order. He never made the slightest imputation of ignorance or bigotry whatever.

MR. BUTT

said, he really was not thinking of the hon. Gentleman at the time.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not named him, he certainly looked at him.

MR. BUTT

could assure the hon. Gentleman that he did so unconsciously, and if the hon. Member's form reached his eye, it certainly did not reach his mind. He was not thinking of the hon. Gentleman at all.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had his eye on him (Mr. Macartney) while he used the words referred to.

MR. BUTT

assured hon. Gentlemen that he had not meant any hon. Member in particular; but he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that this Amendment was framed upon a false and bigoted view of the teaching of Roman Catholics in Ireland. ["Order!"] He was at perfect liberty to say that. He believed there was no subject which was spoken upon with so much inaccuracy as the subject of mixed education in Ireland. There was no such thing as mixed education in Ireland. The Presbyterians would not have it. He must say he wished the hon. Gentleman could induce the Presbyterians to admit the Roman Catholics to their schools. How was it, then, that the Presbyterians condemned the Bill? He had seen the papers, and they said the Presbyterians would not be satisfied with any system of education that did not provide united secular and separate religious instruction. Now, he had the greatest respect for the Presbyterians; and if it was a matter relating to their own Church, he would attach far more weight to their opinion on this matter than he did. But if they wished united education in secular matters and separate education in religion, they could have it, for they could establish separate schools for religious education. He must say that, so far as he could see, the Bill did not interfere in any way with any Presbyterian obtaining the benefits of this Bill. He did not attach the same weight to these representations coming from a body which he so highly respected as he should if they had come in a legitimate capacity. The question, after all, was this. This Bill gave certain advantages. Would the House say now— "We will withdraw those advantages from the Roman Catholic schools?" That was the real question, because this Amendment imposed conditions that they knew a great many Roman Catholic managers would not accept. [An hon. MEMBER: And Protestants, too.] Yes; and Protestant managers, too. He asked whether there was a Protestant parent in that House who, if anxious for his son's education, would send him to a Roman Catholic boarding-school, where the Roman Catholic religion was to he taught, under the control of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics? Did they did not see every day in the Courts of Chancery cases arise in which there was a dispute as to what religion children were to be brought tip in? And the Lord Chancellor, when he decided, said, let the child be kept at a Roman Catholic school or at a Protestant school, as the case might be. That showed that the law recognized a distinction. This Bill was, perhaps, not entirely approved of by all parties; but he considered that it was a fair compromise between the contending parties. He therefore hoped the House would not spoil the measure, and would not permit any doctrinaires to hack it; but would take the course of ignoring all religious discussions, which could not be gone into without defeating the object of the Bill, and take the educational institutions as they had grown up amongst the people of Ireland, aid all those institutions fairly, and ignore altogether those quarrels with which the House had nothing to do.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that on the second reading of the Bill, the clause under discussion was completely ignored, with the exception that some suggestions respecting it had emanated from a quarter entitled to great respect. It had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich that the 7th clause should be altogether omitted, and his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) seemed to think that the right hon. Gentleman's observations had not been sufficiently attended to. His (Mr. Lowther's) answer on a former occasion was that he thought a clause of this kind was required. The clause of his hon. Friend differed from that of the Government. He (Mr. Lowther) was not quite an impartial judge of their relative merits; but he preferred the clause in the Bill. His hon. Friend's clause, however suitable for elementary and day schools, was wholly inapplicable to a system of boarding-schools. In the clause of the Bill, as it stood, precautions had been taken that no pupil should be present during religious instruction which his parents and guardians had not actually sanctioned. That would throw the onus on the right quarter. His hon. Friend said there was nothing in the clause to prevent managers from excluding pupils. But what object would they have in doing so? If Roman Catholic managers were so anxious to proselytize as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to apprehend, surely they would admit with welcome as many as they could of a different religion from their own? Besides, on the principle of the more the merrier, the managers would wish to have as many boys as possible in order to earn more by result fees. Every inducement, indeed, was offered to them to give a good secular education to all comers. The utmost precautions were taken that inspections should be held at the discretion of the Board, and every facility was offered in the Bill for the Boards acquainting themselves by personal inspection with the manner in which the measure would be carried out. He hoped the discussion which had taken place would not be any further prolonged, and that it had convinced the House that it would not be advisable to accept the hon. Member's Amendment, and that it was in every respect less preferable than the clause of the Government as it stood in the Bill.

MR. J. COWEN

said, he was, and always had been, an advocate of secular education. He held that the State had nothing to do with teaching religion, and that all schools—whether primary or secondary, supported either in a large or limited measure by the State—should confine themselves to secular instruction. Imparting the belief of any religious Body in national institutions was, in his judgment, unwise and unfair. But while that was his abstract opinion, he could not disguise from himself the fact, which he was sure was shared by many hon. Gentlemen, that in this case another course had been adopted, and that an attempt was deliberately made to treat Ireland in educational matters with considerable injustice. They had instituted a denominational system of education in England, where the predominating religion was Episcopalian or orthodox Dissent. They had adopted a like system in Scotland, where the belief was Presbyterianism. But in Ireland, where the inhabitants were mainly Catholics, they had adopted a system of secular education. He could not divest himself of the opinion that the difference that was thus instituted between the treatment of Irishmen and the treatment of Scotchmen and Englishmen arose from the fact that the Irish were Catholics and the English Protestants. The reason why Ireland was not dealt with like the other portions of the Empire was an unworthy and unmanly fear of the Papal faith or its upholders. If the Roman Catholic priests were as dangerous to the State as some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches would have them to believe, the very best way, in his judgment, to deprive them of that authority over the people was to treat them with absolute impartiality and complete justice. As long as ever they laboured under the belief that they were dealt with unfairly, they would always have the sympathies of their countrymen with them. If they wished to weaken the influence of the priesthood over the Irish peasantry, they could not do better than grant the Roman Catholic Church every concession that in right it could demand, and which they had now given to their Protestant brethren. On these grounds, therefore —although he saw the force of a good many of the arguments of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) —he would support the Bill as it stood. He did not approve of Conscience Clauses under all circumstances. It was an undignified thing to ask a parent to define the faith of his children. He would rather that no such restrictions existed; but if they were to be enforced, the one embodied in the Bill was just as good, and, in his opinion, better, than the Amendment. They should always recollect the education, the traditions, and the circumstances of the country they were legislating for. They might not like the Irishmen to be Catholics, but they were Catholics. They had to deal with that fact; and being Catholics, they would refuse to avail themselves of the concession that was now proposed to be made to them, if it was clogged with the condition suggested by the hon. Member for Londonderry. To make a present to a man, and to load it with qualifications to which the recipient conscientiously objected, was to give him nothing at all. It was a species of mockery. The Catholics would accept the Bill as it stood; but they would not accept it if the clause now submitted was embodied in it. While, therefore, a strenuous advocate of a secular system for all parts of the United Kingdom, he could not do otherwise than vote against the Amendment; because, to support it, would really be to deprive the Bill of any value that it possessed. It was intended as a message of peace and goodwill to the Irish people, and as such he voted for it.

MR. NEWDEGATE

hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had convinced the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) that the denominational system, which the Bill was intended to establish in Ireland, was of a far more exclusive character than that which prevailed either in Scotland or England. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford had said that because they had not succeeded in establishing a purely secular system in England, therefore he should vote against the only means presented to the House by which a more stringently denominational system than the hon. and learned Member for Limerick advocated could be avoided in Ireland. Believing, as he did, that the clause proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) would effect that object he (Mr. Newdegate) should vote for it.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

, after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), thought himself entitled to say a few words. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick had taken the liberty of saying that his (Mr. Charles Lewis's) Amendment was framed on a false and bigoted view of the action of Catholic teaching in Ireland. He had long been an admirer of the hon. and learned Gentleman; he had admired his character and his ability, and he had imbibed his principles. Many a time he had attended public meetings in the Freemasons' Hall, which the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed. He had admired the oratory of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and if he imbibed of the spirit of which the hon. and learned Gentleman now called bigoted, if he drank too deeply of the spring that had always been copious, though not always the same, it was hardly fair for the hon. and learned Gentleman to enter into the statements about the bigoted Amendments. He challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman to refer to the speech he (Mr. Charles Lewis) made on the second reading of the Bill, and to say that his action throughout had not been consistent; whether he had not argued that it was unfair to set up one class of religionists against another, but that all should be placed on an equal footing? Therefore, when the hon. and learned Member said that he had formed a false and bigoted view of the Catholic system, it passed by him and affected him not, and if anyone was the cause of it, it was the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. What was complained of was that, whereas the National School system kept the school door open, under inspection, for every denomination, this Bill proceeded in a totally different line, there being not the slightest provision that the school should be open to all classes. It was said that the present system of education in Ireland was denominational. It was denominational in this sense—that if they had a village where there were no Catholics, the school would be Protestant, and vice versâ. According to the Report of the Commissioners in 1877, no less than 56.9 per centage of all the schools in Ireland had a mixed attendance of Catholic and Protestant pupils. In Ulster, where there was a mixed population, the percentage was so high as 76.3; in Catholic Munster there were no less than 800 or 900 schools, with only about three or four Protestant scholars in each school. He did not expect that there would be the slightest discussion made on this subject, but that the union between the Home Rulers and the front Bench would be carried out to the resistance of every Amendment, a union which he hoped would he looked upon with felicity. He should be compelled to take a division on the question of the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 102,: Majority 81.—(Div. List, No. 271.)

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

then moved a clause providing that— Every school whose managers may make claim to any payment under this Act, shall be open at all times to the inspection of Inspectors appointed by the Board, so, however, that it shall be no part of the duties of such Inspector to inquire into any instruction in religious subjects given at such school, or to examine any scholar therein in religious knowledge, or in any religious subject or book. The clause was a counterpart of the Conscience Clause in the Education Act. He simply moved it as a protest, and should not divide upon it unless requested by hon. Members.

New Clause—(Mr. Charles Lewis,)— brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, that the subject of inspection was fully discussed in Committee, and that inspection was sufficiently provided for by the Bill as it stood.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that on his side of the House, hon. Members were prepared to support this Inspection Clause, who could not consent to the proposed Conscience Clause.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

, though he had no hope of breaking the phalanx of the Government and the Home Rulers allied against him, felt it his duty to move the insertion of a new clause, as follows:—

(Day pupils.)

"No school from which day pupils are excluded shall be allowed to receive any payment under this Act."

The Amendment had for its object that in those cases where managers of a school thought proper to make a hard-and-fast rule to receive no day scholars, thereby closing their door against any but a particular denomination, then the school should not participate in the benefits of the Act. Of course, he would be told it would be impossible to do that, and that the people of Ireland would not receive such a proposal; but he hoped the House would be disposed to ask for something more than that broad and general denunciation, when he tried to carry out what he believed were the intentions of that legislation— that the greatest facilities should be given to the greatest number to participate in the benefits intended to be given under it.

New Clause—(Mr. Charles Lewis,)— brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK

could not see how all educational establishments could be put on the same footing as regarded day schools, and debarred from the benefits of the Act, if they found it impossible to take a day scholar. The Amendment would have no effect except to inconvenience the managers of schools in their arrangements. The best educational institutions in Ireland would either be excluded from the benefit of this measure, or they would be obliged to alter their entire management, and considerably lower the standard of their pupils.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

failed to see that such a clause would advance the cause of education. If the managers found it desirable to take a day scholar, no doubt, they would do so; but if the school was a boarding school only, in a country district, for the education of the sons of gentlemen, it would be unreasonable to refuse that school a participation in the benefits of the Act unless day scholars were admitted from the rural district, where the class might be entirely different. If it was desirable to prescribe to schools in towns that they should receive day scholars, then, under the Act, the Board would have power to enact some provision to meet the case, in which it would be undesirable to lay down a broad maxim of this kind.

Question put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. J. LOWTHER, the following Amendments were made:— In Clause 2, page 1, line 17, after "year," insert "if any casual vacancy occurs in the office of chairman or vice-chairman, the Board shall, at a special meeting to be held not sooner than one month after the occurrence of such vacancy, choose some member of the Board to fill such vacancy, and the chairman or vice-chairman so elected shall continue in office so long only as the person in whose place he is so elected would have been entitled to continue if such vacancy had not occurred;

Clause 3, page 1, line 27, after "appoint," insert "such examiners, for such terms as the Board shall fix, and;"

Clause 4, page 2, line 5, after "the," insert "examiners and."

Clause 5 (Functions of Board).

MR. CHARLES LEWIS (for Mr. NEWDEGATE)

moved to omit Sub-section 3. This was the first Amendment which would be necessary in order to strike out the result fees, which constituted a part of the scheme of endowment provided by the Bill.

MR. M'LAREN

seconded the Amendment. He looked at it entirely as a question as to what were the best means of disposing of the £30,000 a-year. He most sincerely thought that the plan of giving to the managers of the schools result fees, the amount of which might have been given to pupils in another form, was a wrong plan. It was unjust to the pupils, and would impede rather than promote education. If the funds so proposed to be distributed were devoted to prizes or exhibitions, then a larger number of pupils would be rewarded, who would by the section, as it stood, be excluded. He should on this matter cordially divide with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, although he had felt bound to vote with the majority in the last division.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, to leave out from the word "students," to the word "students," in line 19, inclusive.—(Mr. Charles Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, the House had already distinctly expressed an opinion that encouragement should be given to teachers and managers, as well as pupils. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) had done enough to save his credit among the community, showing his views and it was to be hoped a division would not be necessary. If, however, one was to be taken, the House had better dispose of the Amendment as soon as possible. He should vote against it.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that he had to thank the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) for proposing, during his temporary and accidental absence from the House, the Amendment, the Notice for which stood in his name. That Amendment, as he had already indicated to the House, was to this effect. The Bill contained two principles; one was the principle of the direct payment to scholars of prizes for successful examinations, which was the principle on which the Queen's Colleges were founded; the other principle was the principle of the former Maynooth Grants, now abandoned. The College of Maynooth was originally founded at a time when the Papacy appeared extremely liberal. The First Napoleon, as the exponent of the principles of the first French Revolution, had overturned the Papacy, and deprived the Pope of his temporal dominions. The education of France having been, for a long period previous to the first French Revolution, under the direction of the Jesuits and Ultramontanes, who had worked the Monarchy and the aristocracy of France into the form that they preferred, the result throughout that country became—that the tyranny of their Government became so oppressive that the nation rose, and, after perpetrating, he was sorry to say, very gross excesses, abrogated the ancien régime and destroyed a system of government they could no longer endure. This country, alarmed by the outrages which were committed, and the danger to life and property which that Revolution entailed, made common cause with other European Powers, against the subversive principles of the Revolution. The Pope, having been deprived of his temporal Sovereignty in Italy, as he is now, became, under the necessity of the case, to all appearances, exceedingly liberal. The Papacy professed, through its organs in this country, doctrines more liberal even than the doctrines of the old Gallican Church, and the Pope and his agents seemed to renounce the extreme opinions, which had now been re-adopted by the Papacy, and affirmed by the Papal Council of 1870. At that time, when the College of Maynooth was founded, there existed a deficiency of education in Ireland; and the Irish House of Commons voted money for the establishment of the College of Maynooth, not exclusively, however, for the education of Roman Catholic priests, but also for that of the Roman Catholic laity of Ireland. Time went on. This was done, the House would observe, by the Irish Parliament, and during the existence of that Parliament, he must admit that it kept Maynooth very much within the bounds of moderation. At the time of the Union, this House conceived that it had inherited, as a matter of honour, the duty of providing means, by annual Votes, for the sustentation of Maynooth. But there came a change over the spirit of the Papacy. When peace was restored, in 1814, the Pope, as a mark of his gratitude to the Protestant countries which had re-established him in possession of his temporal dominions in Italy, proceeded at once to re-establish the Order of Jesuits. Some of the Professors at Maynooth, especially Professor Kenny, being connected with the Jesuits, left Maynooth, and at Clongowes, not far from Maynooth, established a strictly Jesuit seminary.

MR. SPEAKER

The House, I must remind the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, is engaged in considering the 3rd sub-section of the 5th clause of the Bill, and I am at a loss to understand how the observations of the hon. Member apply to that subject.

MR. NEWDEGATE

submitted that his observations would be found to have a direct application to the question at issue. It was clear, from the Report of the Commission on Primary Education appointed in 1868, that a great part of the payments by results under this Bill would be made to schools, possessed and conducted by the Monastic and Conventual Orders of the Church of Borne, and any hon. Member of the House who chose to read the Blue Books which contained the evidence and Report of that Commission would find that there had been great difficulty in accommodating grants for primary education to the requirements of those institutions. Those institutions were similar to the College of Maynooth, as it now existed, a distinctly denominational establishment, provided for, in great measure, by a sum which this House had voted in order to terminate its connection with that establishment.

MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK

I rise to Order, Sir. This is not the Question before the House. It seems to me that nobody but the hon. Member himself can see the application of his arguments to the matter at issue.

MR. SPEAKER

The House is now considering an Amendment to Sub-section 3 of the 5th clause; and I confess that, at present, I do not see the connection between the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and that Amendment. At the same time, I do not wish to interrupt him, if he thinks that he can establish the relevancy of his remarks to the Question before the House.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he would establish the relevancy of his remarks, if he might be permitted to do so. It was distinctly in evidence, and had been admitted in debate, that many of the Roman Catholic schools to whom it was now proposed to grant money as the result of the successful examination of their pupils, were exactly in the same position as the College of Maynooth, after the House had decided upon dissolving its connection with that institution. He held that all the reasons which had induced the House to sever its connection with Maynooth, to give up the attempt to inspect the educational discipline of Maynooth College, to separate itself entirely from the form of education conducted there, were involved in the Question before the House. There were Commissioners in the case of Maynooth; but it was found practically there was no power of inspection—the inspection was so futile that Parliament gave it up. He (Mr. Newdegate) saw, and he condemned in the Bill on the Table, this proposal to adopt that principle of connection with the system of education conducted in these Monastic and Conventual institutions — institutions which were analogous to the College of Maynooth. He supported the Amendment, therefore, because he considered that—["Oh, oh!"]—he knew that this was a sore subject with the Home Rule Members opposite, who would prefer that there should be no inspection, or seemed to rely upon its becoming futile. He (Mr. Newdegate) would, on the contrary, vote for the Amendment; because its effect would be that, instead of making those payments to the directors and managers of those Monastic and Conventual institutions, of which there were at least 50 in Ireland, which involved the necessity of a pretended inspection, the payments would be made upon the same principle as the payment of prizes was made in the Queen's Colleges—in other words, the payments would be made directly to the successful examinees or their parents. That principle had been found consistent with the national system of education in Ireland, and which Parliament had maintained, while it had abandoned its connection with Maynooth, where the other principle—the principle of State connection with the management of these Roman Catholic institutions—had been in force. The proposal before the House, made by the Government—and he lamented that they had made it—was to establish a connection with these exclusively Roman Catholic Monastic and Conventual institutions exactly upon the same principle as that by which the State had formerly been connected with Maynooth. The difference was that the payment to those institutions would only be made on the production of successful examiners, instead of by a yearly allowance. He was surprised that hon. Members from Ireland should appear to be so utterly ignorant of the investigations and Report of the Commission of 1868. He held in his hand the Report of that Commission, and it referred to this payment by results without any very strict and therefore efficient system of inspection. The Commissioners suggested the adoption of a modified Conscience Clause as the only way by which it was possible for them to make payments to the primary schools, conducted by those Monastic and Conventual institutions. This gave force to what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, as to the objections of the managers of these institutions to inspection; but if public money were to be granted to the managers of these institutions, some sort of inspection was inevitable. The Commissioners of 1868 admitted, in their Report, that in Conventual schools a Conscience Clause was a mere embarrassment to the managers, while it could not afford real security or protection to the pupils; yet hon. Members advocated a Conscience Clause, proposed by the Government, in a form which the evidence taken under the Commission of 1868 showed would be a mere embarrassment to those Monastic and Conventual institutions and their managers, and could scarcely be of any avail to the pupils. When a Conscience Clause, modelled on the principle of the Conscience Clause operating in England and Scotland, was proposed by the hon. Member for Londonderry, it was rejected; the decision of the House, pronounced by a large majority, was totally inconsistent with the evidence given before the Commission of 1868, so far as the contemplated effect upon these Conventual and Monastic schools. He thought, then, he had established some connection between the facts he had adduced, and the arguments he had drawn from them. Hon. Members opposite, who professed Liberalism in this matter, sought to reconcile themselves to avoiding their principles by a determination to ignore the nature, the characteristics, and the discipline of these schools connected with the Monastic and Conventual institutions, which they were about virtually to endow—in fact, they seemed to have determined upon ignoring the leading facts of the subject with which they were dealing. For himself, he went upon this broad principle—that this State of England was a Protestant State, and was bound to the great principle of toleration; and he held that it was more consistent with the principle of toleration, when they did not profess to teach religion, and debarred themselves from meddling with religious education, that they should be stern in their adherence to respect for parental right. The best way to secure parental right in this case was to pay the school prizes directly to the successful pupil or his parent; thus leaving unfettered and uninterrupted the power of the parent to regulate the relations of the pupil with the school in which he was educated. That was the most tolerant principle; and when the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) confessed that these schools, in many instances connected with Monastic and Conventual institutions, were of such a nature that they would not admit practical inspection, and that a Conscience Clause was to the managers of those schools a mere futile embarrassment; when the hon. and learned Member argued thus, he (Mr. Newdegate) asked the House to steer clear of all the difficulties manifestly inseparable from interference with the management of these schools, and to rest its confidence as to the method of education upon parental right, and not to connect itself, however indirectly, with the discipline and management of institutions which the law still declared to be illegal. That seemed to him the simple solution of the matter, and strictly in accordance with the first principle of the Bill. The first principle of the Bill was that the rewards or prizes should be given for successful examinations in such subjects as were comprised in what was termed " intermediate education." Then let the House adhere simply to that principle. It was absurd to suppose that the inspection of these Monastic and Conventual institutions would be a reality, when it was known that they would not submit to inspection, if it were rendered practical. He had in his hand the evidence which was given by some of the Christian Brothers before the Commissioners of 1868, and, with the permission of the House, he would read what some of them said— Brother Grace, the acting Director of the Richmond Street Schools, Dublin, objects to the examination and classification of the Brothers. Professor Sullivan put this question— 9,698. Professor Sullivan—With respect to the general question, would there be any objection to the examination and classification of your body by any external authority? Brother Grace answers—I would never submit to such a process. It would not become us as a religious body; our training is such as we consider quite equal to any we could get outside. We have the training and classification in our own hand, and I don't see why external parties should seek to come and decide upon that which we have already settled. That was the spirit with which the House had to deal. Again, Brother Grace was asked by Professor Sullivan— 9,700. Then, if afterwards it was found possible to connect your schools to the Government, so as to receive Government aid, would you forego the advantages of payment by classification, and rest satisfied with payment for results alone?—I would sooner submit to an injustice than allow the members of our body, who are religious men, trained and brought up for years to our method of teaching, to be submitted for examination and classification to an external body. Now, all that showed that the House did wisely, when it ceased its connection with, and its pretended supervision of, the College of Maynooth. But what were they doing now? They were proposing to revert to that which experience condemned—the attempt to establish educational supervision over Monastic and Conventual institutions in 50 cases. He thought that at length hon. Members were beginning to see the relation of his argument to the Question immediately before the House. Hon. Members seemed determined, if possible, to pass the Bill without its effect being known by the country. Her Majesty's Government, in order to carry the Bill, had cleared the House of their oldest supporters, as was apparent by their absence. The front Opposition Bench was positively empty! Why was that the case? Because right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite knew perfectly well that the same objections which had existed for years to Governmental connection with the Roman Catholic institutions, which had for years prevailed against the Maynooth Grant, continued strong and rife among the English and Scotch constituencies; many hon. Members, therefore, sought to be excused from voting on this occasion. The House might thus be cleared, and at the end of the Session a connection between the State and these Monastic and Conventual institutions might be instituted, to which the people of England and Scotland and the Protestants of Ireland had always objected; the House might thus depart from the great principle upon which the system of primary education in Ireland had been established. They might do all this; but he was determined, by dividing the House on the Amendment, that hon. Members present should declare by their votes whether they preferred the connection through these grants between the Legislature and those Monastic and Conventual institutions, to adopting the more tolerant principles upon which the Queen's Colleges were founded. He lamented that any hon. Members of that House appeared to be prepared to vote that they would not leave unchallenged and un-interfered with the right of parents to direct the education of their children, by rejecting the principle that, when they awarded prizes, or provided for prizes being awarded, to successful examinees, the payment should not be made to the successful candidate; that it should not be made to his parent or next of kin, but should be made to the conductors of the school in which the candidate was being educated, thereby involving themselves in a connection to which the great body of the people of England and Scotland had always objected, and to which the Protestants of Ireland also, before they were politically crushed, had always objected; he should regret the decision of the House, if the majority should choose, against the teaching of experience, to incur great difficulties rather than adhere to the simple principle of paying to the examinee the reward of his success, and leaving his parents to settle the method of his education as a matter between themselves and the managers of the schools.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, that the question of results fees had been so fully discussed at an earlier stage of the Bill that he did not propose to follow his hon. Friend through the objections he had taken to the measure, seeing that he (the Attorney General for Ireland) considered that the system proposed in regard to payments by results was in the main deserving of their support. The question was hardly looked at in a reasonable way by his hon. Friend. Results fees could be looked at from two points of view. First, suppose there were no results fees to be paid at all, what would be the effect upon the education of the country? Surely, the only boys that would present themselves, or be prepared for examination, would be the ablest and brightest boys in the schools. If, however, they were to be paid, surely, if the masters were able to turn out boys creditably, it was but reasonable that they should be entitled to a moderate amount in the shape of results fees. The most powerful argument for the system was the benefit which would accrue to the average, or what might be called the stupid boy. By offering a powerful incentive, the master was induced to devote his energies on the average boy, so that an examination grant might be obtained, instead of cramming clever boys only. That appeared to him (the Attorney General for Ireland) to be the commonsense way of looking at the question, and on that ground he hoped the House would support the Bill.

MR. SHAW

, as one of the crushed Protestants to whom the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had alluded, had no hesitation in supporting the Bill, which he looked upon as one that would be of exceeding advantage to Ireland, and to Protestants as well as Roman Catholics. Many of the schools in which formerly boys of Protestant parents were educated and prepared for College had disappeared, and he knew that in several places it was in contemplation to set up those schools again; but it would not be possible to do so if the proposal of the Bill as to results fees was rejected. The Bill interfered as little as possible with the prejudices of the country, and he thoroughly approved of it, believing it to be one of those happy thoughts that pleased nearly everyone. There could be little doubt that even the Dissenting community, if they were appealed to, would be found to be in its favour, for the only resolutions that had been carried against the Bill were those of separate Presbyteries and not the whole Body. Indeed, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) seemed to be quite unaware of the fact that the Methodist Body of Ireland, who lately held a meeting in Dublin, refused to pass a vote condemning the Bill. It was conceded on all sides that there was a good case for legislation, and he wished to know what the opponents of the Bill would propose to substitute in its stead? If they brought forward a Bill to cut off the right arms of the whole of the people of Ireland, it would be thought a most monstrous thing; but by denying the opportunities of education, they were stunting the minds of the people. He regarded the measure as an earnest, an honest, and a true effort to promote the cause of education in Ireland, and as time went on he believed it would produce great results.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he wished to point out that the Bill contained no definition of the word "manager," and that no attempt had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to define it. That was the first difficulty. The second difficulty was that there was no inspection except in a very limited sense, and how were they to judge of management without efficient inspection? The moment the system of payment by results was introduced, they lost all control over the schools. The Bill did not make its appearance until April, and it was not brought forward again until the energies of the House were exhausted by a protracted Session, and they saw the extraordinary spectacle of a House, three-fourths of which were Irish Members, who could, if it were competent for them to do so, carry a Motion in favour of Home Rule. No doubt the Bill would be carried, but it would open up the way to endless difficulties. In fact, it was like opening up one of the seals in the Revelations. The simplest way was to cut out this proviso. The real question was, whether the method of pay- ment by results was as convenient and as expedient in the cause of education as it was undeniably novel? In his view, that was certainly not the case; and to a great extent he agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, when he had spoken of the difficulties which would result from the Bill. Was it necessary that all the difficulties attendant on the relations between the State and the schools should be created? There could be no such necessity; and the troubles that would follow might easily be obviated by rewarding the pupils themselves rather than their teachers. That plan would give an equal stimulus to education, and would be in every way preferable to the system that would be established by the Bill.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, constant references had been made to a speech he delivered four years ago, in which it was said that he stated the results fees involved such difficulties that no Ministry would think of introducing them. The position was that when he brought the measure before the House, he was anxious to bring it forward in as simple and inviting a manner as possible. There was not the slightest foundation for the argument that results fees involved concurrent endowment, that private venture schools in the Irish towns had gone out of existence, and that they would be resuscitated by results fees. The results fees constituted the most important and the most necessary part of this Bill, if teachers were to pay fair attention to ordinary pupils, instead of concentrating their attention on those likely to earn prizes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had endangered the passing of the Bill by countenancing the opposition to results fees; but his absence indicated that he had changed his opinion, and had made a second mistake in connection with Irish education. Not a penny of the results fees would go to the funds of religious Bodies, some of whom conducted schools at a loss; but they would be expended upon libraries, or other means of improving the general education. They tolerated denominationalism in elementary schools, for the schools were Protestant or Catholic according as the majority of the population were one or the other; and the protest against it in intermediate education could come only from the deter- mined foes of middle-class schools in Ireland.

MAJOR NOLAN

pointed out that the question had been fairly argued in Committee, and that result fees were paid at the primary education schools. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), he must say the Irish Members present, all told, were 49; and it did not require to be a Second Wrangler to know that 49 were not three-fourths of 129. He contended that because some £3 or £4 a-year should be paid to the managers of schools, instead of to the boys, it would not create that plague and pestilence all over Ireland which some hon. Members seemed to imagine would be the case.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 24: Majority 86.—(Div. List, No. 272.)

MR. SULLIVAN

claimed the indulgence of the House while he stated that inadvertently he had voted with the minority. He had been writing in the Library, and when he entered the House he did not hear the Question put, and through mistaken information he went into the wrong Lobby. He wished to know whether any alteration could be made in the record?

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he was in a similar predicament. He had not a particle of sympathy with the objects of the minority.

MR. SPEAKER

said, there was no mode by which the record of the vote could be altered. Both the hon. Members having been in the House when the Question was put, the result of their votes must be recorded as they were given.

Clause 6 (Rules to be made by Board).

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 32, after "examination," to add— And for payment of the necessary expenses of juveniles and subsistence of students to, from, and at the place of examination. The Amendment was intended to provide for the encouragement and assistance of poor scholars.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 32, after the word "examination," to add the words "and for payment of the necessary expenses of journeys and subsistence of students to, from, and at the place of examination."—(Mr. Charles Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. J. LOWTHER

opposed the Amendment. It would open up a source of unlimited expense.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COURTNEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 33, to omit the words "as far as conveniently may be." The object of the Amendment was as far as possible to prevent the Board of Commissioners from making any Order giving boys any advantage over girls in regard to the benefit of the Bill. He believed that as the Bill stood originally, and before those words were inserted, boys and girls stood on the same footing; but those words seemed to suggest that the girls were to wait until the boys were fully provided for. That ought not to be the case. The two sexes should be placed on a footing of perfect equality, and it was principally to elicit from the Government a declaration that that was their intention that he had moved the Amendment. It was said that there was not sufficient money to provide adequately for both boys and. girls, and that it was not desirable to limit the assistance to be given to boys. But he believed that that idea was founded on a misconception. He did not think more than 2,000 boys would pass in three subjects, and obtain pass certificates, &c. At the most, those boys could not obtain more than £100,000 in result fees for their schools. Then, calculating that it might be assumed no more than £8,000 a-year would be required for exhibitions, that made £18,000 to be given to boys. Then, taking the extravagant estimate of £10,000 a-year for management, that would make £28,000, leaving £7,000 for the girls; but he did not believe that anything like that expenditure on boys could take place without a reduction of the standard of examination beyond any reasonable level. If that were so, there would be a still larger sum disposable for girls. Girls were admitted to the local examinations set on foot by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge with this result —that the number of girls competing in the senior class was greater than that of the boys, and the same was the case in respect to those who passed with honours. The figures connected with the examination of girls in connection with these examinations were conclusive as to their capacity to stand, and even to succeed, in the same examination as boys. The Queen's University and Trinity College had started examinations for girls precisely the same as for boys, and he had been told that 360 girls had obtained certificates from Trinity College, and 230 from the Queen's University. Why, then, if there was money available, should not girls be examined in the same way and on the same subject as boys? It was said that it was sufficient if young women were instructed in needle-work and cooking. He did not at all undervalue those acquirements in the education of women; but if they were not to be taught anything else, then, logically, it ought to be sufficient to educate boys in merely carpentry and farming. The object in both cases was not to inculcate special technical knowledge, but to develop the mind and the mental capacity. In both cases, the same training was equally applicable, and he should move the Amendment, with a view of eliciting from the Government an assurance that such an application should be made.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 33, to leave out the words "as far as conveniently may be."—(Mr. Courtney.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, when the words were brought forward in Committee, they were approved by the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) and others who took an interest in the education of girls. In fact, with the exception of the hon. Member for Liskeard, all the friends of female education were content with the Bill as it stood. He believed, also, that ladies who had adopted the cause of the higher education of their sex were disposed to acquiesce. The hon. Member for Liskeard, however, was more Loyalist than the King. The words to which the hon. Gentleman objected were not his (Mr. Lowther's); they were taken from the 12th section of another Statute—that relating to English Endowed Schools—in which they had been found to work well and without injustice to girls. "What was intended by the words to which the hon. Gentleman objected was, not that girls should be placed at a disadvantage as compared with boys, but that the Commissioners should make reasonable rules for the examination of girls, and the grant of exhibitions to them.

MR. HOPWOOD

supported the Amendment, the principle of which was to deprive the Commissioners of anything like an option in the matter, and to impose it upon them as a duty to make provision for the education of girls. The words proposed to be left out might be applicable enough in a measure dealing with old endowments; but were altogether inapplicable to a measure which proposed to establish new endowments, forming, as they did, an unworthy condition, tending in the direction of restricting female education.

MR. BUTT

said, that the cry for intermediate education which had arisen in Ireland, had no reference whatever to girls. The complaint was that the education of young men, who had to bear the brunt and battle of life, and whose education in that respect was of more importance than the education of girls, ought to have provision made for it. When this Bill passed the House of Lords, there was not the slightest intention of providing for the education of girls. ["No, no!"] Whoever said "No" had paid very little attention to the passing of the Bill. The meaning of the Amendment was to place the education of girls and of boys on precisely the same footing; but if that duty were imposed on the Commissioners, they would be involved in very difficult questions. There were some hon. Members in that House who were too fond of assuming that public opinion was always on their side, and in favour of every crotchet they took up—and he could assure the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), who, perhaps, knew less of public opinion in Ireland than he did, that there was no desire in that country to spend money in order to give exactly the same class of education to girls as to boys. The question of girls' education might be made the subject of a distinct Bill, to be considered next Session; but the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard would destroy the real use of the present measure. There was a strong ob- jection to raising questions of this nature at that late stage of the Bill, and he hoped that the Government would not give way upon the point, but would adhere to the Bill as it stood, leaving the Commissioners to exercise their discretion in the matter.

MR. HERSCHELL

denied that the Lords had passed the Bill with the clear understanding that it was not to apply to the education of girls. On the contrary, when Earl Granville was about to propose an Amendment in that direction, he was assured by the Lord Chancellor that the Bill as it stood might be applied by the Board equally to the education of girls as to that of boys. He had the very best authority for that statement.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

protested against the charge that had been brought against those who objected to the Bill as it stood, that they were resorting to obstruction to get rid of it. When that measure, of the greatest public importance, was being discussed, the front Opposition Bench was entirely empty; and therefore it was the duty of those who opposed the Bill as it stood to do their best to enforce their views on the matter, without succumbing to the terrorism which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had resorted to. Everyone knew that the hon. and learned Member was one of the fathers of the Bill, and that the whole thing had been settled between him and Her Majesty's Government.

MR. BUTT

denied that he had resorted to terrorism, and stated that he represented no views on this question but his own and those of the Irish people. All he had done was to enter his protest against Amendments of this nature being introduced into the Bill at that late stage instead of in Committee, and thus endangering the measure.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

was rather astonished at this display of warm enthusiasm on the part of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis). He had promised that if the opportunity afforded, he would do what he could to support the claims of women in this matter; but he could not support little Amendments of this character, which might have the effect of imperilling the Bill, and which would never have been introduced as questions of principle if they had not been intended to interfere with the measure now that the House was within four days of the close of the Session. Power ought to be given to teach women in Ireland especially music and drawing, for which they had the greatest capacity, and thus to enable them to earn a livelihood. He would support any proposition to secure that object. He trusted an opportunity would be given in a future Session to amend the Bill in that respect.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

suggested that, as the words in question were unnecessary, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should consent to omit them. In his opinion, that might be done without materially affecting the Bill, and he believed it would carry out the object of the Government more completely to do so.

MR. FAWCETT

did not think that anyone would accuse him of desiring to hinder the passing of the Bill; but he was bound to say he was inclined to think that if any hon. Member of the House had done more than another to effect that purpose, that Member was the hon. and learned Gentleman who represented Limerick (Mr. Butt). That hon. and learned Gentleman ought to know the House sufficiently well to be aware that of all the expedients which could possibly be adopted to interfere with the progress of a Bill, none was so likely to succeed as the unfortunate tone which he had taken of assuming that every person who desired to amend a particular measure was in reality an enemy to it in disguise. Those who were endeavouring to make the present Bill as good a Bill as possible were in no degree responsible for its being considered on Report on the 12th of August. But there was no decreed necessity why the House should rise on any particular day; and they were bound to consider carefully every part of the measure, though the 12th of August had been reached. The Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) raised a question of undoubted importance, and that Amendment he supported. He did not say that in administering for educational purposes the funds of the disendowed Church of Ireland the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill should lay down any hard-and-fast line declaring that women must be educated exactly in the same way as men, and pass exactly the same examinations as men; but he did say the Commissioners ought to bear in mind that they were just as much bound to look after the education of the women of Ireland as they were to attend to the education of the men of that country. Those funds were as much the property of the women as of the men of Ireland, and he contended that in their administration there should be no distinction of sex.

Question put.

The House divided: — Ayes 123; Noes 32: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 273.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 5, at end, to add— No candidate shall be allowed to obtain a pass, nor be awarded any exhibition, prize, or certificate at any examination under this Act, unless he satisfies the examiners that he possesses an adequate knowledge of one at least of the first, second, or fourth divisions of the subjects mentioned in the Schedule of this Act.

THE O'CONOR DON

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would fully explain the meaning of his Amendment, because it raised a very important question. Under the first division, it was proposed to include the ancient languages of Greece and Rome, and also, if the Board thought fit, the Celtic language. What he required to know was, whether it was intended that the Board should have the power, under the Amendments which would come on subsequently, to place the Celtic language on exactly the same footing as Greek and Latin; whether it was intended that the passing in the Celtic language would apply to conditions? He now proposed that the candidates must obtain a pass in a subject under the 1st section.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, he had placed on the Paper an. Amendment which was somewhat similar in character to the right hon. Gentleman's. Ireland had, even in remote ages, the highest reputation for its scholarsaip—so great a name had one of her scholars—Scotus —on the Continent, that it used to be said at Salamanca—" Qui scit Scotum, scit totum." He was not disposed to allow that scholastic reputation to be lowered by the provisions of the Bill, and it was, therefore, that he embodied in an Amendment the making a condition precedent to obtaining a prize a knowledge of either Greek, Latin, or mathematics. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to make it imperative that the students should not only have a knowledge of Greek and Latin and mathematics, but that they should also possess a knowledge of the Celtic language, of Irish history, and of English history. Now, the Celtic language was, for all material purposes, except so far as regarded its connection with theology and ancient history, as much a dead language as Latin and Greek. ["No, no!"] He would ask any hon. Member to tell him whether a shopkeeper or farmer was likely to send his son to learn the Celtic language, at a cost of £60 a-year, when he had the opportunity of learning French and German, which would be so much more useful to him in after-life; and did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that in any of the 32 counties of Ireland, except in portions of Mayo, Kerry, and Galway, shopkeepers would send their sons to learn the Celtic language for the purpose of obtaining prizes? He remembered in 1846–7, in some parts of Ireland—Mayo, for instance—the Celtic language was generally spoken; but being in the same district 20 years after, he found a knowledge of the ancient language confined to the oldest inhabitants. He need not say the last thing he would attempt would be to discredit the Celtic language or literature. His name would save him from such an imputation; but the question must be looked at practically, and it would be a farce to suppose that in this utilitarian age parents would pay for education not likely to be useful to their sons in official or commercial life. To say that the Bill would result in boys learning the Celtic language was a delusion, and he was sick of delusions. The knowledge of mathematics, Greek, and Latin, however, was necessary to true scholarship.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, the particular Amendment suggested by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was really a very small matter, which ought not to give rise to much discussion. It was suggested to his right hon. Friend that as many more people knew Latin than knew Greek, those two languages should be placed in separate divisions, while the claims of Celtic should be recognized in the curriculum. His right horn Friend, therefore, pro- posed to add to the language, literature, and history of Rome, the Celtic language, literature, and history. Thus, in his opinion, the claim of the Irish, language would be fairly recognized.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, the hon. Baronet (Sir Patrick O'Brien) had made an attack on the Celtic language. [Sir PATRICK O'BRIEN: No!] He, and those who agreed with him, had made no exaggerated claim for the Irish language and literature, and he agreed with the hon. Baronet that it might not be of so much importance as Latin or Greek; but the Irish people still spoke it, and that was an argument in favour of teaching it. More than four-fifths of the people of Mayo spoke it daily, and in the interest of education, it was desirable to hold out such inducements as would lead the people to take advantage of it. The hon. Baronet was the only Member of that House who had attempted to crush the first efforts of Parliament to revive the study of the Celtic language, to which the English people owed so much, and he trusted that the hon. Baronet would find himself in quite an isolated position on a division. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had withdrawn from the engagement he first made with reference to that language, and had now brought forward a proposal for which nobody was prepared. He (Mr. O'Connor Power), however, thought that the Celtic ought to be placed in the same category as the other modern languages, and in that intermediate position after the study of French and German to which it was justly entitled.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

explained that he had never intended to deride or decry a knowledge of the Celtic literature. He merely alluded to the fact that it was not likely to be made a subject for pass under this Bill.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

MR. E. JENKINS

moved the insertion of words, providing that the Board should define what persons should be deemed to be managers entitled to receive payment of result fees.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 8, after the word "fees," to insert the words "and for defining what persons shall be considered to he managers in order to be entitled to receive payment of result fees."— (Mr. Edward Jenkins.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. SULLIVAN

said, he was at a loss to understand the purport of the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, what was intended was that the result fees should be paid to the de facto managers, whoever they might be, and it might well be left to the Board to deal with the question. If a master was his own manager, he would, of course, be entitled to receive the fees.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, that out of respect for the convenience of hon. Members opposite, and also from a desire not to obstruct the Bill unreasonably, he would take the sense of the House upon only one other Amendment. That was to insert words giving powers to the Board to make rules for the inspection of schools the managers of which received any payment under the Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 11, after the word "Schedule," to insert the words '' for the inspection of the schools the managers of which receive any payments under this Act."—(Mr. Charles Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that if the hon. and learned Member looked at the clause referring to inspection, he would find that the Board had absolute power to accomplish all the objects he had in view. To introduce the words of the Amendment would limit and restrict those powers, and they were, therefore, not only unnecessary, but might be injurious.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 119: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 274.)

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 18, to leave out the words "within forty days after the same shall have been so laid before it," in order to insert the words "before the end of the Session." The hon. and learned Member said, great powers were given to the Board by the Bill. Amongst other powers, he found that the power was given of making provision to carry out the rules in the Schedule of this Act, and for varying, altering, and amending the rules. That was a legislative power. He had no doubt it was the intention of the Government to give the House a real control over the action of the Board. If that was their intention, he had no doubt they would agree with him that such an intention could not be fairly carried out by the provisions of the Bill as they now appeared, for 40 days was not enough to enable the Legislature to interfere with effect. He proposed that, instead of limiting the rights of Parliament to 40 days, they should be exercised at any time within the Session. He would not detain the House with any further observations, but trusted that the Government would adopt the Amendment, as its object must be identical with theirs.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 18, to leave out from the word "within" to the word "before," inclusive, in order to insert the words "before the end of such Session of."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. J. LOWTHER

thought it would be unadvisable to make the Amendment suggested. As the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware, there were precedents for the form which had been adopted. Under these circumstances, he saw no reason to alter the clause as it stood in the Bill.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, his only reason for wishing to add the words was to give Parliament a real control in the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. J. LOWTHER

moved, as an Amendment, in the Schedule, page 5, line 33, to insert "either separately or together with the Celtic language or literature." He said, that an understanding had been arrived at with the Committee that the Celtic language should be made part of the curriculum. The reason for making the present Amendment was, that the French, German, and Italian languages, literature, and history, formed a class of studies, and it was necessary to add—" either separately or together with the Celtic language or literature"—that was to say, that the Celtic language should not be made a distinct subject by itself.

THE O'CONOR DON

thought that the simplest plan would have been to have placed the Celtic language on the same level with the other languages mentioned in the Schedule. As now proposed, the Celtic language would not be placed on an equality with the others; it was only an addition which might or might not be taken up. It was not quite clear what advantages would be derived from taking it up, and it seemed to him that all that was promised was that a candidate who took up Celtic should not lose any marks for so doing. There was, therefore, no advantage offered for studying the language.

MR. O'DONNELL

observed, that in the Queen's Colleges, the Celtic language was made so entirely a side study that it really was not included in the general studies. The result was that the Celtic language had ceased to be studied; and he was very much afraid that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would be just as useless in the intermediate education of Ireland as the provision for the study of Celtic in the Queen's Colleges, and that its only effect would be to make Irish a sort of side study, which would not be taken up. He felt assured that the Amendment would not be of the slightest practical effect in promoting the study of Irish, and he could not but think that its passing would only give a purely illusory satisfaction to Irish national sentiment.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

would like to be informed what was the Celtic language? The Celtic language, he believed, was the Gaelic. He came from a part of the country where the Celtic language was used—the Irish, and the "Welsh, and the Gaelic spoken in Scotland, were all Celtic languages.

MR. PARNELL

observed, that he saw no advantage in the Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER

informed the hon. Member that he had already spoken on the subject before the House.

MR. PARNELL

stated that he merely wished to ask a question.

MR. COURTNEY

said, there was no such thing as the Celtic language. Many languages came under that head, and, as the Bill stood, it was difficult to know which was meant; though if the Irish language were mentioned, it would be clear. He was sure that no single boy in Ireland would be competent to undergo an examination in the Celtic languages.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

apprehended that all that would be effected by this clause would be to add a subject to the list of studies in which marks could be obtained. The number of marks to be raised for Celtic was not prescribed, and it would be one part of the duty of the Board to fix the particular number of marks that would be given for proficiency in the Celtic language. It would be much better if the language were called Irish, for nothing was more clear than that the Celtic language was sub-divided into several others — the Welsh, the Breton, and the Irish and Scotch dialects. The Irish people were anxious that there should be a certain amount of instruction in the Irish language, and, therefore, he thought that it was right that there should be power to award a certain number of marks for proficiency in it.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

observed, that after all that had been said on the subject, it would be scarcely right to pass a clause that would be inoperative. The Government should pass a provision that would encourage the study of the Irish language. No Irish Member of the House used the word Celtic in speaking of it; everyone was satisfied with the word Irish, and yet the word Celtic had been introduced by the Government. Their Amendment simply said that a knowledge of Celtic would not be a disqualification; but there was no encouragement to the study of Irish, unless it were in the provision for instruction in the "language, literature, and history of Great Britain and Ireland." He would call the attention of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) to that sentence, and would ask him what would be its effect upon the study of the Irish language? If it did not cover the claim they had put forward, then he should be very much disposed to object to the Amend- ment. It was not desirable that the Bill should be passed in a shape which would be likely to give rise to misunderstanding.

THE O'CONOR DON

did not think that the clause referred to included the Irish language. The hon. Member for Newry (Mr. W. Whitworth) had distinctly laid it down on the second reading of the Bill that the language of Great Britain and Ireland was the English language.

Amendment agreed, to.

MR. COURTNEY

proposed, as an Amendment, that students should not be permitted to hold exhibitions amounting to more than £80 per annum; he thought £100, the limit fixed, was excessive.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 37, after the word "endowment," to add the words "when the joint annual value of such scholarships, exhibition, or prizes shall exceed £80."—(Mr. Courtney.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. J. LOWTHER

thought that the limit fixed by the clause was the best.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MELDON

said, he did not intend to move the Amendment which stood in his name with regard to National School Teachers. The object that he had in view had been attained, and the slur which would have been cast on teachers had been removed.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, all the Amendments to the Bill had been disposed of; and as the Session was now nearly at an end, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a third time.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, that if there were the slightest chance of substantially adding to the number of hon. Members who opposed this Bill at the third reading, he should feel it his duty to object to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman; but he did not desire to throw any factious impediments in the way of Public Business, or to carry his opposition to the Bill to an undue extent. He had done his best to oppose the Bill, and he had failed. He was satisfied, though still protesting against the Bill, that it would be useless to oppose the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.