INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 249.]

HC Deb 25 July 1878 vol 242 cc261-327

(Mr. James Lowther.)

COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. James Lowther.)

MR. CHARLES LEWIS,

in rising to move— That, in the opinion of this House, the names of the Members of the proposed Board should be communicated to Parliament before the consideration of the Bill in Committee, said, he should not have interposed on the present occasion had it not been for the remarkable course taken by the Government on a previous occasion. When the second reading of the Bill was moved, there was a debate which lasted between five and six hours. Objections were taken to the Bill by himself, and also by various Members on the other side of the House; but, on the whole, the Bill received a considerable amount of support—a support which, in the main, might be said to be unanimous. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) made a speech containing a weighty suggestion with regard to a considerable portion of the Bill, which was described, on that occasion, as being of the first importance. Notwithstanding the fact that the debate lasted five or six hours, the Government pursued a course which was almost unprecedented. At its close, they did not condescend to take the slightest notice of any remarks which had been made in opposition to the Bill, nor did they even acknowledge the considerable amount of support given by hon. Gentlemen opposite to the main propositions of the measure. This showed the remarkable way in which Business was conducted in the House, and had it not been for the course pursued by the Government, he should not have troubled the House on going into Committee. His object in rising was to obtain the names of the Commissioners, and he submitted that it was a matter of great importance that the House should know how the Board was to be constituted. When the first Oxford University Bill was introduced, the names of the Commissioners were given before the second reading. The names of the Cambridge Commissioners were given in the Bill. In the Reform Bill of 1867, the names of the Boundary Commissioners were given, and in the case of the Irish Church, the names of the Commissioners were given before the close of the discussion. In the present case, there were abundant reasons why the names of the Commissioners should be given, and for this reason. When the Bill was once passed, the House would have no control whatever over the Board, and the Bill was so shaped, that, although certain rules were laid down in the Schedule to the Bill, the Commissioners would have the power, with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, to abrogate every one of the rules, and substitute an entirely new system. The National Education Board had been in existence for upwards of 40 years, and its history had been one of dissension and dissatisfaction. There was nothing to prevent the Board contemplated by the Bill from being wholly an Ecclesiastical Board, or it might be constituted of worn-out Judges, or of any other class of men. Now, he could not suppose that the Government had introduced the Bill without having fixed upon some Commissioners to constitute the Board. The Bill gave no constitutional check, either on the Board or on the action of the Board, and as his Amendment was based on obvious good sense and convenience, he trusted it would receive the sanction of the House. No doubt, there was a provision in the Bill that the rules to be made hereafter by the Board should be laid upon the Table of the House; but, unless some private Member obtained a good place on the Paper, there was nothing to prevent him from being counted out; so that, before the expiration of 40 days, the rule might become law. The Bill was objectionable in many other respects. It gave no sufficient encouragement to the erection of new schools; it provided no guarantee for the efficiency of the schools; and its inevitable tendency was to destroy all chance of a mixed secular education amongst the middle classes in Ireland, and it was a direct step towards concurrent endowment. If an opportunity had been given, the Presbyterians of Ulster, and the religious bodies throughout Ireland, would have made numerous complaints, and suggested numerous amendments. He would rather that the Bill should be abandoned, than that it should be passed in its present terms, because then they would have a better measure next Session. He warned the Government against pursuing the downward course of concurrent endowment.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the names of the Members of the proposed Board should he communicated to Parliament before the consideration of this Bill in Committee,"—(Mr. Charles Lewis,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. RICHARD

Before offering a few observations on the Bill before the House, I wish to make one preliminary remark as a Welshman. I do not grudge any educational advantages that are accorded to our fellow-subjects in the sister Isle. But it is impossible not to feel the contrast between the profuse liberality displayed towards Ireland in the matter of education, as indicated by the endowments granted to Maynooth and the Queen's Colleges, and the £1,000,000 of money now given for intermediate education, with the niggardly, miserable spirit shown towards the Principality of Wales. A few months ago, I had the honour of accompanying a deputation to the Lord President of the Council. It was by far the most powerful and influential deputation from Wales that ever waited upon any Minister for any object. It comprised representatives from almost every part of the country, from every class of the community, and from every shade of religious and political opinion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite from Wales, headed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Denbighshire (Sir Watkin W. Wynn), were as united and earnest in their application as those on this side of the House. The object of the deputation was to ask for some aid from the Government to a most valuable and meritorious Institution, which for several years has been struggling into existence—the University College of Wales—intended to give the advantages of a higher education to the Welsh youth, especially those of the middle and working classes. The demand we made was of the most modest description. But, after waiting for several months, we have just received a reply from the Government, refusing to give us any assistance, even to the extent of a single penny. But, while I do not grudge what is done for Ireland, I do feel that it is a little hard that Irishmen, who, to say the least, make themselves very troublesome to the Government, get so much, and nothing whatever is done for the loyal and peaceable people of Wales. I begin to think that Wales is too loyal and peaceable. Perhaps, if we were to start a Fenian movement, or a Home Rule movement, and to make ourselves generally uncomfortable to the Government, they would then be disposed to listen to our voice and to pay some heed to our just claims. Now, turning to this Bill, I am sorry I was not present at the second reading. If I had been, I should certainly have united in the course taken by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis). I have since carefully read his very able and temperate speech, and I am bound to say that I concur in almost every word he uttered on that occasion. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was not, in any sense, a sectarian speech. He did not object to the manner in which this money is appropriated, because it went to this, or that, or the other religious Body; but because the Bill violates a great principle, because it involves a departure from the educational policy pursued for many years in Ireland, and because it foreshadows other and still more important and dangerous changes, which seem logically to follow from the position now taken. The Bill starts by appearing to recognize what I hold to be a sound and salutary principle—a principle for which I have always contended in this House—that when the Government deals with education, it can only deal with the secular element; that religious instruction lies beyond its province and competence; that it cannot touch that without doing violence to conscience on one side or the other, and sometimes on all sides. This does not mean that religion should form no part of education. No one would more strongly object than I do to such an exclusion. But that the State, dealing with public money, must restrict itself to aiding, and encouraging and inspecting secular instruction, leaving the religious element to be provided by the parents and guardian, and by the churches through such voluntary organization as they may think fit to adopt. But this Bill, after laying down that principle, proceeds in its details to a flagrant violation of it. That provision especially which gives payments for results to schools, will, in effect, amount to nothing less than an endowment of all kinds of denominational schools out of the revenues of the Disestablished Irish Church. Now, I, at least, can take exception to this, without incurring the suspicion of being actuated by any bigoted or intolerant feelings towards the Roman Catholics. I object to it, not because it gives money to Roman Catholic schools, but because it gives money to sectarian schools. I objected to this in English and Scotch education; and I can, therefore, with perfect consistency, object to it in Irish education. I am anxious that hon. Members from Ireland should understand the position taken by me and by those whom I represent on this occasion. No doubt, the Nonconformists are ecclesiastically as wide as the poles asunder from the Church of Rome. But we have always contended that, however widely we may differ from them in that respect, they are entitled to perfect equality of civil and religious rights with ourselves, and we have always helped them to obtain that equality. We stood side by side with them in their agitation for removing the disabilities under which they so long laboured. The best proof of this is the fact that, in 1829, immediately after Roman Catholic Emancipation had been carried, Mr. O'Connell appeared on the platform of a Nonconformist Association, well known in those days, called "The Protestant Society for the Protection of Religious Liberty," to acknowledge, in frank and cordial terms, the services rendered by the Nonconformists in the struggle which had just been crowned with success. These were his words— I have come here as the representative of the warm-hearted feelings of the people of Ire. land. I stand hero in the name of my country, to express our gratitude, in feeble but insincere language, for the exertions made on our behalf by our Protestant Dissenting brethren. I have come here to express my thankfulness for the support which they have given to the great cause of my country. And when that strange anti-Catholic agitation swept like a hurricane over this country in 1850 and 1851, and issued in the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, I, for one, withstood it to the best of my ability, and exposed myself to some reproach by contending that the Roman Catholics had a right to make any arrangements they thought necessary for their own spiritual order and discipline. And I repeat that I object to this Bill, not because some of the money may go to Roman Catholics— I have not the slightest idea what proportion may go to them, what to the members of the Disestablished Church, and what to the Presbyterians—but I object to it because it gives public money to promote and perpetuate sectarian education. And I shall, therefore, cordially support those Amendments of which Notice has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) and others, in the hope of making it at least less obnoxious and dangerous than it is in its present form.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

At this stage of the Bill I must say a few words; because the Bill, in its present form, commits a real injury on the poorer classes in Ireland. Ireland and Scotland are two countries poor in the raw materials of industry, and they require —more than England—to develop the natural abilities of their populations. Scotland has done that largely, through its elementary schools. Only a small percentage—at the most 7 per cent—of children in elementary schools show aptitude for superior education. Well, it has been our principle in Scotland to plant a ladder between the lower schools and the higher schools, and to sustain the youths while climbing up the ladder by small bursaries or scholarships. Has this led to the neglect of the remaining 93 boys out of the 100 who have no aptitude for superior education? On the contrary, the infusion of higher subjects elevates the entire school, and gives a breadth and a vigour to its whole teaching. The result which this Bill fears, that if the scholarships are open to the national schools, the many will be injured for the benefit of the few, is wholly belied by our experience. The danger can be guarded against by the simple expedient of refusing scholarships to a national school unless its elementary passes are also considerably above the average. In Scotland, no grant is given for higher subjects unless there has been more than 75 per cent of passes in the examination for the ordinary standards. I know how difficult it is to argue such a cause as this in England. Here we are accustomed to look upon education to the masses very much as a pauper's dole; and, therefore, we give it with a niggard hand, and not with a generous free bounty. In Scotland, we try by scholarships to attract the intellectual few out of the mass of the population, and to convert them into producers of wealth, instead of allowing them to remain mere hewers of wood and drawers of water. Now, this is what I want to persuade the House to do, by lowering the fee for examination from its prohibitory amount of 10s. to 2s. 6d., and by withdrawing the words which prevent the Irish national schools receiving result-fees if they educate promising boys to compete for scholarships. Something might be said against my Amendment, if the scholarships under the Bill were attached to well-organized secondary schools. Even then, there ought to be a bridge between them and the primary schools. But the scheme of the Bill is to pay for knowledge, however and wherever acquired. It seems to me to be a double and a fatal error to cut off the national schools from the new scheme. First, because you raise an artificial barrier between the poor and the middle classes, and say to the former—"Thus far shalt thou come, and no further." Second, because you depress the intellectual fund in a poor country, when experience proves there is never too much of it for national wants. I could enlarge much upon this theme, but I do not desire to have protracted discussion on this Bill. One appeal, however, I must make to the House. The annual sum which you are about to apply for scholarships is, in my estimation, very large, and the prizes are upon an honour scale rather than on a pass scale. When the Scotch Education Bill comes on, I am going to try to persuade the House to let the ratepayers of Scotland furnish just one-tenth the sum, or £3,000 a-year, for intermediate education in Scotland. I contend, therefore, that, if properly administered, there are ample funds now provided as a stimulus for higher education, both in middle-class and in primary schools. For you do not require to pay for such a useful commodity as superior education to the middle classes; but rather, by prizes, to indicate when that commodity is good. For the poor, help ought to be more direct, and yet the Bill proposes to shut them out from all participation of a fund which comes from the surplus of a disestablished Church. That Church gave its ministrations to all classes, irrespective of sex, and making no difference between rich and poor. When we apply its funds for education, ought we not to be as broad in the distribution of the benefits? My proposal, then, is to remove the obstacles which bar the lower classes from seeking higher education, and thus to give to poor Ireland the inestimable benefits which poor Scotland has obtained, by bridging over the chasm between the elementary schools and the higher education of the country. I cannot conceive anything which would tend more to the prosperity of Ireland. If you have a country poor in the raw materials of industry, the more is it necessary to train its citizens in that knowledge which is required to enable them to take part in the intellectual competition of nations. You cannot lessen the results of the proposed Bill by enlarging the area of its action. A very forcible remark was once made— that while you lessen the power of many things by spreading them over too large a surface, the power of science increases the more widely it is diffused. That wise saying is contained in the Papal Bull which founded the University of Aberdeen, and my Roman Catholic Friends in this House might take it to heart, and endeavour to extend the operations of this Bill to all classes of the Irish people, by removing the restriction which shuts out the poorer classes from the benefits which it confers.

MR. E. JENKINS

congratulated the Government on the Bill containing one or two points which, coming from the other side of the House, were rather extraordinary; for it was the first time that any Government had brought in avowedly a Bill simply for secular education, to be supported by funds taken from religious uses. It should be pointed out, for the information of the country, and that the people might understand the true meaning of the measure, that by the Bill the Government were introducing a system of concurrent endowment. To that he, for one, could never consent. There were very great and serious defects in the constitution of the proposed Board, and in the powers that were to be assigned to them. The whole thing might be placed in the hands of clerics who would not enjoy the confidence of the people; and, therefore, it would be better to lay down, as a necessary rule, that the Board should consist of lay members only. The House ought to provide that there should be some security that the education which would be encouraged under the Bill should be liberal. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would agree that the Bill should specify one of the subjects in which the students were to be examined. With regard to the Conscience Clause, if they were going to encourage edu- cation by a system of concurrent endowment, should they not insist upon the managers of schools, who would receive money directly or indirectly in respect of pupils passing examinations under this Bill, throwing open their doors to children of all denominations within the reach of such schools?

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was sorry to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) complain of a want of courtesy on his part, or on the part of his Colleagues, in not making a reply the other night to criticisms which had been made on the Bill. He did not mean in his silence to be discourteous, nor did he wish it to be understood that there was any want of appreciation on his part as to the value of the hon. Gentleman's observations. The suggestions offered in the course of the debate on the former occasion related almost exclusively to matters of detail, and it was not expected that the Government should at once pronounce a definite opinion upon the many points urged. The speech of the right hon. Member for Greenwich was a most able answer to the observations of the hon. Member for Londonderry. With regard to one of the questions touched upon in the present discussion, he could not admit that there was an absence of all check upon the proceedings of the Board to be constituted under the Bill. The Board would be incapable of departing in any way from the decision at which Parliament had arrived without Parliament having a full opportunity of considering the matter. If there should be any valid objection entertained to a new scheme promoted by any Board of this kind, the House would have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon such scheme. The course which the Government now proposed to pursue was that which, he believed, had been uniformly adopted with regard to similar bodies, and had not, he thought, been productive of inconvenience. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) spoke of the spirit of profuse liberality in which the Imperial Parliament approached the question of intermediate education in Ireland, and compared it with the miserable, grudging spirit in which a similar question with regard to the Principality with which he was connected was treated. The hon. Gentle- man, however, omitted to state that this profuse liberality on the part of the Imperial Parliament was merely affording to the Irish people a share in their own money. That, he thought, disposed of most of the criticism on that head. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had made a remark about the exclusion of national school teachers from the result payments mentioned in the Schedule of the Bill. He thought that a wise exclusion. The national school teachers had a great work to perform. Upon them devolved the task of primary education in Ireland, and he thought it would be departing from sound policy if encouragement were to be held out to them to step aside from their legitimate functions, and devote their time, in a great measure, to another branch of education. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the surplus as being part of the fund originally enjoyed by all classes, and, therefore, complained of the exclusion of those getting primary education. [Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR: The exclusion of the poor.] Certainly; but the only way in which he presumed the poor could be included was in the manner he spoke of. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the claims of the national school teachers were before the House, he (Mr. J. Lowther) ventured to throw out the hint that a portion of the surplus of the Church fund might be made available with regard to some portion of their claims. That, he thought, merited the attention of the Government, and he might further point out that they were not now appropriating the entire surplus of the fund, and that there was still a considerable portion unappropriated by the Bill, and that the claim of the lower classes of the community might not impossibly be dealt with at some future time. As to the entrance fee mentioned in the Bill, its object was, as the House would clearly see, to prevent fictitious candidates from presenting themselves for examination by way of a practical joke. The amount of the fee was put down at 10s., but there was no obligation to maintain it as a limit. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) spoke of the Bill as establishing the principle of concurrent endowment, and said he wished the House to take note of the fact that the Government and Parliament were now establishing a precedent whereby money hitherto devoted to spiritual purposes was to be devoted purely to secular purposes.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, that the words "secular education" were used in the Bill.

MR. J. LOWTHER

But the hon. Gentleman wished special note to fee taken of the fact that the Government and Parliament were affording a precedent for the application to particular secular interests of money heretofore devoted to spiritual purposes; and he then went on to establish, to his own satisfaction, the conclusion that the Bill would at the same time promote a scheme of concurrent endowment. Now, he thought that those two propositions fairly answered one another. [Mr. E. JENKINS: They are both in the Bill.] Secular instruction had not been put into the Bill without an object. That object was that money given by Parliament should be given exclusively in respect of secular instruction, and he denied that concurrent endowment in any shape was promoted by that measure. The hon. Member had thrown out suggestions as to the composition of the Board which were, no doubt, entitled to consideration. Now, he was not himself in a position to enter into any discussion as to the component elements of that Board. His hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) had commenced his speech by expressing the opinion that the Board should be named before the House proceeded further with the Bill. It was by no means the general practice to adopt that course. According to the precedents in such cases, it was at a later stage of the Bill than that at which they had arrived that any announcement was usually made as to the component elements of a Commission of that kind. It was, of course, necessary that the Government, before mentioning the name of any gentleman for so trustworthy a post, should communicate to him their intention to offer him a seat on the Board; and it would hardly be respectful to Parliament that Government should make offers of that description before Parliament had, in substance, sanctioned their proposal. Therefore, it was not intended to announce the names until the Bill had passed through Com- mittee and Report. In doing that, the Government thought they would be complying with general practice, and also showing proper deference to the opinion of Parliament. In conclusion, he hoped that he should not be deemed wanting in courtesy if he did not now travel further into the points which had been raised; but urged the House to allow the Bill to proceed without any unnecessary delay.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

thought it would be advisable to exclude Italian and German from the subjects of examination.

MR. D. DAVIES,

referring to what had been said by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), admitted that that money belonged to the Irish people, and did not grudge them it. At the same time, the people of Wales asked for a very moderate sum—namely, £2,500— for a Welsh University, and. he was sorry that the Government did not grant it. The Welsh people were exerting themselves in the matter, and he himself was happy to subscribe towards the institution; but the Government might surely give a small amount of help in aid of voluntary contributions. His constituents told him that until the Welsh Members obstructed Business in the same way as the Irish Members did, they would never get anything. He did not want to do that; but he only warned the Government not to put the Welsh Members in that position. There had been a wonderful change in the House since the Bill was introduced. The measure was thought by persons out-of-doors to be a sop thrown to the Irish Members in order to keep them quiet, that the Government might finish the work of the Session. There were in Wales about 1,500,000 of very loyal subjects, who did not give any trouble to the Government, or put the country to any expense. They and their Representatives took what they could get; but they wished to stand up for their rights. He, therefore, trusted that the Government would not refuse the small grant of £2,500 towards enabling the people of Wales to obtain in the Principality that higher education for which they could not go to Oxford or Cambridge. He was under a pledge, if the Government would only give £2,500 for a College in Wales, to contribute £4,000 himself over and above the sum he had already paid towards the same object.

MR. NEWDEGATE

observed, that the Bill gave almost carte blanche to those who would carry out its provisions; and he was not surprised at the feeling which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) at the prospect of £1,000,000 sterling being voted away without the House knowing by whom the money was to be spent. Who, he asked, were to be the Plenipotentiaries whom they were to appoint to regulate the intermediate education of Ireland? There were slight indications from Wales, and also from Scotland, that the people of both did not like that manner of doing business. The Government had hitherto been trusted by the great body of the Protestants of England; but they would find that the confidence reposed in them would not be increased by the abstinence from frank and open communications they had shown on that subject. Probably, if the House was content to remain in ignorance, the Government would take advantage of this disposition and keep them in the dark.

MR. VERNER

agreed with the hon. Member for Londonderry, that it would not be advisable to divide on the Motion, as it was not their wish to lend themselves to a line of mere delay or obstruction. Reluctant, as he was, to interfere with the course of Her Majesty's Government, he felt it his imperative duty to protest against this attempt to stereotype a mode of management of the education of the South of Ireland which had been proved to have a baneful effect. They had always been told that the only system of education which would suit the people of Ireland was an undenominational system; but they had found that the Board appointed to carry out that system with regard to primary education was appointed on a purely denominational ground. It was now proposed to have a Board of the same objectionable kind for intermediate education, and he could not understand it, except it was explained by the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, who feared that the Government must have some desire that concurrent endowment should be carried out, and go further. He (Mr. Verner) could not see any other reason for its being introduced into the Bill, and he thought it would be far more to the advantage of intermediate education in Ireland that there should not be this introduction of the denominational element. In his opinion, a smaller Board of paid Commissioners, who would merely administer the Act, without indulging their opinions or views one way or the other, would have been preferable; but if the present arrangement was to be carried out, he did not go so far as the hon. Member for Dundee, and he would not confine it to laymen. Possibly, the Chief Secretary might think the point he had touched upon a mere matter of detail; but, in reality, it had an intimate connection with the success or failure of the proposed system. He had not heard of the composition of the new Board; but, no doubt, the Government, to judge by their course hitherto, would please their Friends opposite.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 23: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 236.)

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Establishment of Board).

MR. E. JENKINS

moved, in page 1, line 7, after "established," to insert "of laymen and graduates of any university in Great Britain." The hon. Gentleman said, the object of this Amendment was professedly and designedly to exclude from the Board those who might be clerics of any denomination. It was obvious, therefore, that the proposal did not affect any particular denomination. The object was to prevent anything like an attempt to form a sort of clerical cave in the Board, which was a very small one, and which would have very important powers. He might point out that it was not in the least necessary that all the clerics on this Board should be members of any particular denomination, in order to make it unadvisable that they should be there at all; because the Board would have a very important function to perform—that of framing the rules, and creating the system under which this large sum of money was to be expended. The Committee would see that having, as this Board would have, the right to dictate a large number of subjects in addition to those named in the Bill, it was quite possible that there might be a combination of clerical elements which might be injurious to the promotion of intermediate secular education. There was no doubt that the Bill itself did appear to be very different in one part from what it appeared in another part. In one part, it promoted secular education; in another part, it practically promoted denominational education by concurrent endowment. Supposing the Government were not protected by explicit words in the Act, from influences being brought to bear upon them to place ecclesiastics upon the Board, it was clear that if the Lord Lieutenant was to elect a Presbyterian, or an Episcopalian, it would become necessary, in order to make the thing square, and have a proper balance of parties, to appoint ecclesiastics from the other denominations. It was to protect Government from anything in that direction that he brought forward this Amendment. But there was another object, and it was this—that the members of the Board should be graduates of some University. It was for the purpose of securing that there should be, at all events, some sort of primâ facie academical position and potentiality. It was quite clear that something must be done in order to secure that. It had been pointed out that the description he proposed in his Amendment would exclude persons who were academically competent, who were not graduates of Universities in Great Britain, but who belonged to Catholic Colleges in Ireland, and that such persons might be qualified to sit on the Board. He should be quite ready to give way with regard to that point, supposing the Government were ready to accept the principle of his Amendment. If they could suggest some way of ascertaining the academical qualifications, he should be willing to insert it in the Bill. But two main points which he suggested by his Amendment, which he urged on the consideration of the Government, and which he felt were of great importance, were that the Government should protect themselves from any influences being brought to bear in various parts of Ireland, and that it should be made a qualification that every member of the Board should be a layman, with, of course, the requisite academical qualifications.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not find it necessary to press this Amendment. He would remind the hon. Member and the Committee that there was a large number of persons in Ireland who, under ordinary circumstances, would have enjoyed a University education, but did not; and by passing this Amendment, these persons would be virtually excluded to a large extent. With regard to the desirability of excluding clergymen, he would observe that such a course had not been thought necessary on any other Education Board. But apart from that, it was to be remembered that in Ireland intermediate education was, to a large extent, in the hands and under the guidance of clergymen of various denominations—clergy of the Established Church, of the various Nonconformist Bodies, and of the Roman Catholic Church. What would be the effect of excluding clergymen of those various Bodies, who took so much interest, and had so much experience, in the promotion of education? Nothing could be more fatal to the Bill. No one, he was sure, would desire to see any particular element predominant; but, on the other hand, no one who desired the success of the Bill would wish to see any particular element excluded, especially the particular element which had already taken so great a part in education. Nothing could be more ruinous than to exclude them. The result would be to exclude some men whose presence was necessary to the success of the scheme. The hon. Member spoke of the creation of a clerical Cave; but did he suppose it likely that clergymen — Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian—would join in a Cave against the laymen? It was not likely that such a thing should happen. He believed that the suggestion which the hon. Member had made was founded on a mistake which had unaccountably got into the minds of some hon. Members, to the effect that a large proportion of the people of Ireland would attempt to wrest this Bill into a scheme of sectarian education.

MR. E. JENKINS

rose to a point of Order, and said, the hon. Member had misunderstood him. It was not with reference to religious education at all; but with reference to the liberal character of that education that he made the remark.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he believed that the dread which the hon. Member, and some other hon. Members, entertained of a liberal education in Ireland, arose from the idea that the Irish Members were endeavouring to wrest this Bill to sectarian purposes. So far as he knew anything of the history of this question, they had no such intention. They desired—and desired as strongly as any Member of the House— that this measure should be a measure to be really and generously enjoyed by the people of Ireland, and that it should be equally well-fitted for all classes of the community.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that just before he came to the House, he was reading the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) in 1874, when he brought before the House the necessity for adopting some measure for the encouragement of intermediate education. He proposed that there should be an examination, but he expressly stated that he did not propose to reward the managers of schools, or the instructors in schools, because that would raise the question of denominational education.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

rose to Order. He must request the hon. Member to read his words, as he could not accept his version as a real representation of what he said.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that if the hon. Member doubted the accuracy of his memory, he could assure him that the words he had used were very much to that effect. He read the speech with great attention. It was a very able speech in many respects, and the hon. Member could not dissociate this question as to the character of the Board from the latter part of the Bill, which he expressly, in 1874, said he abstained from pressing because it would raise the denominational question. He, therefore, could not help thinking that the hon. Member's correction of what had been said by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) was rather lame. He could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee, because he thought the total exclusion of all clergymen would be an anomaly. If he had proposed that four should be laymen, and only three ecclesiastics, he should have voted with him.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR,

hoped the hon. Member for Dundee would not press the Amendment to a division. In Ireland there were numerous gentlemen of the highest qualifications for a seat on the Board; but they were not graduates of any University. Besides that, he should be very sorry to see clergymen not trusted as citizens; and no man could be better qualified for a seat on the Board than that most accomplished scholar, Dr. Russell, the Rector of Maynooth.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, the wish of the Government was to secure for the Board gentlemen of position, of learning, of experience in educational work; and if it were necessary to include clergymen or persons not having a University degree, he believed Parliament would not be so illiberal as to prevent their nomination; but there was no intention in the mind of the Government, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) seemed to think, of having a majority of clergymen on the Board, because no person in Ireland would like to see that.

MR. BUTT

said, the Amendment excluded everyone but graduates in Great Britain. Did the hon. Member for Dundee mean to exclude graduates of the University of Dublin? As the Amendment stood, it excluded any graduate of that University. He must say that this appeared to be just a specimen of the rashness with which Amendments were sometimes placed upon the Paper without due consideration. Hon. Members were not treating the House with proper respect when they did not take the trouble to ascertain that Ireland was not part of Great Britain before placing an Amendment upon the Paper. He would advise the hon. Member not to trouble himself too much in this matter, and to deal with it as little as he could, until he had made himself better acquainted with the subject.

MR. E. JENKINS

replied that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) should have listened to the observations on which he had ventured to comment before he spoke upon them. When he had brought this matter before the Committee earlier in the evening, he had distinctly stated that he felt the awkwardness of the form in which he had drawn this Amendment. He had felt that there were many members of the Catholic University who were well qualified, academically, for these posts; and, therefore, he knew how difficult it would be to draw up the Amendment in such a way as would carry out his intention. In these circumstances, he had expressed himself as being perfectly willing to accept such alterations in it as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) might suggest. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick, however, had thought right to read him a lecture because he had interfered with this Bill. It was true that he was a younger Member of the House than the hon. and learned Member for Limerick; perhaps he was not half his age as a Member; nevertheless, the hon. and learned Gentleman had no right to lecture him upon the responsibility he owed to the House before he put an Amendment upon the Paper. He certainly was not going to take his orders in such a manner from any Irish, English, or Scotch Member in that Committee, and he would inform the hon. and learned Member for Limerick that he was not in the habit of bringing forward questions with which he had not taken pains to make himself fully acquainted. He hoped, after the explanation he had given, that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would see the propriety of qualifying the observations he had made in reference to his action in this matter.

MR. BUTT

said, that he had no qualification of his observations to make, because the hon. Member for Dundee had given no explanation whatever. The Catholic University was a totally different institution from the Dublin University, and had no power to grant degrees; but the Dublin University was on a level with Oxford or Cambridge, and the Amendment as framed—and he dealt with it as framed—prevented the most distinguished member of Dublin University from being appointed to this Irish Board of Education. He did not mean to doubt the hon. Gentleman; but, before he gave Notice of such an Amendment as this, he ought to have considered that Ireland was not a part of Great Britain.

MR. NEWDEGATE

was sorry to have misquoted the remarks of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy). The language actually used by the hon. Member on the 9th of June, 1874, was as follows:— He would not ask for a Capitation Grant, payable to the trustees in proportion to the success of their students, because though that might be very desirable, he could not conceal from himself the fact that it would involve an expenditure to which the House might be unwilling to consent, and it would be argued that it would be for denominational education."— [3 Hansard, ccxix. 1273.] The hon. Member's words, therefore, were not quite so strong as he had put them, but they distinctly admitted that it was open to argument; and he presumed the hon. Member thought that it was to be argued in opposition to his proposal that it was for a grant in aid of denominational education.

MR. FAWCETT

said, that considering that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was exceedingly anxious that this Bill should pass, it was scarcely wise of him to extend his observations to Amendments which had not yet been proposed. He had looked carefully through these Amendments, and they certainly did not appear to be open to the strictures which the hon. and learned Member had made upon them. At all events, it would not save time to make strictures upon them by anticipation. His object in rising was to save time. He had no reason to suppose that the hon. Member for Dundee would take a suggestion from him; but they were agreed, he knew, upon many points on educational matters, and he would advise him not to press his Amendment. He could not help seeing that there were great difficulties to be encountered in dealing with this subject. He entirely sympathized with the hon. Member in one part of his Amendment—namely, that which proposed that the Members of this Board should also be members of a University who had taken degrees; because that would be a guarantee that they were persons who had received a liberal education. On the other hand, it could not be denied that it would be unfair to exclude from the Board members of the Irish University. There were many Catholic gentlemen who were members of that University, who were distinguished for their learning and ability, who would be most proper persons to place upon the Board. For instance, the hon. Member's Amend- ment, if carried as it stood, would exclude Dr. Russell. In these circumstances, he must say that he did not see how it was possible to lay down any satisfactory rule on the point. Then, as regarded the latter part of the Amendment, although no one would regret more than himself to see too much of the ecclesiastical element on the Board, yet it would be a most illiberal thing to say that no ecclesiastic should be a member of it. There was nothing he disliked more than to impose disabilities upon any class. There could not be a more devoted friend to education than Dr. Lloyd, the present Provost of Trinity College, Dublin; and yet this Amendment would exclude him from the Board, and the same thing might be said with regard to many other clergymen in both Ireland and England. On the whole, therefore, he did not think that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee, although it was doubtless proposed with a liberal intention, excluding, as it did, such men as Dr. Lloyd, would meet with the approval of the Committee. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member for Dundee would be content with the discussion which had taken place, and would withdraw his Amendment.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, that he would remind the hon. Member for Dundee, who possessed a great literary reputation in that House, that the object of this Bill was to meet the want of liberal education which, unfortunately, existed in Ireland. It was almost a matter of wonder that that want was not even greater than it was at present, considering under what great disadvantages, with regard to liberal education, the Irish people laboured. In these circumstances, he hoped that the hon. Member for Dundee would not throw any unnecessary obstacle in the way of passing this measure. Although the Bill might not come up to the ideal of the hon. Member, still he must admit that its effect would do much to raise the standard of education in Ireland. He therefore begged to exgress a sincere hope that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, he hoped that the Committee would allow him to explain that the cause of the misunderstanding which had arisen between himself and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) was a misprint in the Amendment he had proposed, the words of it appearing to be "Great Britain" only, instead of "Great Britain and Ireland," as he had intended they should be. He had not had his attention directed to the fact before, and he ought to be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for having pointed out the mistake to him. After the opinion which had been expressed by the Committee on his Amendment, he should not feel justified in detaining them longer in reference to it. He would merely say, in reply to the observation of the hon. junior Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), to the effect that there was no precedent for the proposal he had made to exclude the ecclesiastical element from this Board, that there was no precedent for allowing ecclesiastics to administer intermediate secular education. He begged to be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, he should not move the next Amendment on this clause that stood upon the Paper in his name. He would, however, move the next Amendment to the clause of which he had given Notice. He proposed, in page 1, line 17, after "year," to insert— Subject to the power of displacement above vested in the Lord Lieutenant. On removal of either by the Lord Lieutenant, the Board shall elect for the remainder of the term a substitute or substitutes. He thought that it would be seen that, unless these words were adopted, some little difficulty would arise with regard to the re-election or the substitution of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Board when their offices became vacant.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that he did not think that these words were really required; because the contingency contemplated by the hon. Member for Dundee would not be likely to arise very often in practice.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman how the matter stood. First of all, the clause stated that— If any vacancy occurs in the office of any member of the Board by death, resignation, or otherwise, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland may appoint some other person to fill the vacancy. But then, in the earlier part of the clause, it was said that these offices were to be held during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant. Supposing that these officers were to be displaced by the Lord Lieutenant, the Board could only appoint to these offices at their first meeting; and the question would be, whether the Lord Lieutenant could legally displace the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Board when once they had been appointed?

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he would be glad to give the subject his consideration before the bringing up of the Report.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, that, under those circumstances, he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Assistant Commissioners and other officers) agreed to.

Clause 4 (Salaries and expenses) agreed to.

Clause 5 (Functions of Board).

MR. COURTNEY

said, he rose for the purpose of moving the omission of the 3rd sub-section of the clause which provided— For the payment to managers of schools, complying with the prescribed conditions, of fees dependent on the results of public examinations of students. The object of the Bill was to provide for intermediate education in Ireland, and it was solely in furtherance of that object that he now moved the omission of this 3rd sub-section of the clause. If he believed that the retention of this sub-section would tend to the improvement of intermediate education in Ireland, he should have been the last to have opposed it; but it appeared to him that instead of its doing good in that direction, its operation would be positively mischievous in relation to the future progress of education in Ireland. The main scheme of the Bill was to stimulate education in that country by means of prizes to be given to those who distinguished themselves. This subsection proceeded upon the principle, not of giving the prizes to the students who distinguished themselves, but to the managers of the schools who produced them. He asked, whether such a course was either necessary, or desirable? This sub-section was so essentially different from the provision for awarding prizes to successful students as to involve the principle of concurrent endowment, and the payment that was made for producing certain results might be devoted to something else. It was not necessary, for the cause of education, that payment should be made in this way, and the desired result — that of applying a stimulus to students—would be more certainly secured by awarding prizes to them individually. After all, a master might fail to present his boys, and the result would be that he would lose the reward of his labour. Just at the last moment some difficulty might arise between the master and the parents, and the latter might refuse to permit their children to go up for examination, and the master would lose his legitimate reward. He was not striking so much at the proposal to pay money for this purpose as at the mode in which it was to be paid. He was aware that it had been objected that if all the money were expended in Scholarships and prizes, the attention of the masters would be concentrated upon the most intelligent boys, and the others would be neglected. If prizes of £3 or £5 each were given to all boys who passed in three classes of subjects in the average standard, the danger that individual boys would receive too much attention would be obviated. The character of this mode of payment would be better realized, if it were considered in its application to University education. If so much were given to the managers of Colleges for each student who matriculated or took a degree, it would be seen that regular contributions, amounting to considerable sums, would, practically, result in the endowment of strictly denominational Colleges. This mode of payment was not necessary from an educational point of view, and from a religious point of view it was objectionable; and, therefore, he begged to move the omission of Sub-section 3 from the clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 16, to leave out after the word "students," to the word "students," in line 19, inclusive.—(Mr. Courtney.)

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

MAJOR NOLAN

said, the hon. Member for Liskeard did not appear to bear in mind that there were two analogous cases in which the Government paid by results. The first was exactly in point, it arising out of the payment for primary education. A large proportion of the grant for elementary education was paid for results in precisely the same manner that the hon. Member for Liskeard deprecated—namely, not to the pupil or to the parents, but to the manager of the school. In the second case, the analogy was, perhaps, not quite so obvious, although it really applied to the present case with equal force. The £500,000 that was voted annually for the Volunteers was paid to the captains or colonels, who got the men together, and not to the men themselves, the grant being paid for results. That plan had been found to work very successfully. These two cases completely answered the objections of the hon. Member for Liskeard, and showed that the system of payment to the managers of the schools, as proposed by the 3rd sub-section of the clause, would work well. The hon. Member for Liskeard said, that it was a mere accident whether the students would come up for examination; and that, therefore, the managers would be obtaining payment for a mere accident. That argument might be good enough of any single student coming up for examination; but it would not hold good where a large number were to be brought up. Nothing was more uncertain than the life of one man; but nothing was more certain than the average duration of the lives of a large number of men. It would be found that the average number of students coming up for examination would be always about the same. The average number so coming up would be equally constant, at all events, with the average number of persons annually run over in the Strand; and of the total number who were examined, a certain number would pass, proportionate to the educational advantages of the schools, from whence they came. But then the hon. Member for Liskeard went on to say—"Why not give the prizes to the boys themselves?" What was the common sense view of the matter? If the money were given to the boys themselves, they would, in all probability, merely squander it in giving themselves and their friends a holiday treat, or, at the best, they might buy a box of mathematical instruments with it, and go to the wrong shop for it. Or, said the hon. Member, it might be given to the parents themselves. But then the parents might give it to the schoolmasters—perhaps half would do so. The boys, however, would not get so much stimulus, in an educational point of view, from that course being adopted, instead of giving money directly to the teacher. If the money were given to the teacher, he would constantly be urging upon the boys the necessity of their earning a prize. He had no doubt that the whole band of teachers would be able and willing to coach boys to pass for the larger prizes. It would be pleasanter, and, perhaps, more profitable, work to instruct such boys who would make a figure in society than to produce average men, who made the wealth of the nation not because they were the cleverest, but because they were the most numerous.

MR. GORST

said, he wished for information as to who were to be the managers of these intermediate schools? In the case of elementary schools the word "managers" was most carefully defined; but no such definition was contained in the present Bill, which had reference solely to intermediate education. It was important to have information on this point, in order that the money might be paid to the right persons. In illustration of what he meant, he would ask his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was the manager, or who were the managers, of the Royal School at Armagh—was the manager the headmaster, who only contributed to the success of the school; or was the management vested in the Board of Commissioners in Dublin, whose duties were restricted to the appointment of the head-master, and who had just as much to do with the actual management of the school as the House of Commons had? In the event of a number of boys from this school passing, to whom would the capitation grant be paid, and how would it be applied? He thought the Committee ought to have information on this point before being asked to discuss the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he did not rise to answer the question asked by the hon. Member who had last spoken, for he entertained no doubt that it would be very easy to ascertain the names of the managers of these institutions; but he wished to say a few words on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard. His hon. Friend said the object of the Bill was to promote intermediate education in Ireland, and he should like to know how that education was to be promoted, and what was the want at present existing? Taking the last question first, he would say that, as far as the Roman Catholics were concerned, what they wanted was really good schools with efficient teachers. Well, was that more likely to be supplied by paying the successful teachers or by giving the money to the pupils, who, by themselves or their parents, might do what they liked with the premiums awarded? If the money was to be disposed of in the way he had suggested last, it would fail in accomplishing what he took to be the main object of the Bill; and therefore he thought the Amendment would defeat the object which he felt sure its Mover had at heart, and which he had stated to be the object of the Bill.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, the further the discussion proceeded, the more clear it became that the Government had laid before the House a very admirable scheme in a very loose manner. It was very important to know, as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had suggested, whether any definition was to be included in the Bill as to who were to be the managers of the schools? and it was no answer to a suggestion to say that the fact could be very easily ascertained. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), referring to the question of payment by results, said the same system prevailed in England. So it did, but the conditions were different. In England the payment depended upon inspection; under the present Bill there was no such provision. Again, the Bill provided for certain pass examinations; but it gave no definition as to what the students should be examined in, in order to obtain a pass, and so entitle the managers of the schools—whoever they might be—to take the results fees.

MR. MURPHY

thought the Bill sufficiently explained the nature and constitution of the managing Bodies of the schools; and enabled the Lord Lieu- tenant and the Commissioners to ascertain for themselves what the duties of the managers were, and how they were to be performed.

MR. GORST

said, if that was the explanation it made matters even worse, because it would enable the Commissioners to give the public money to whomsoever they thought fit. Parliament certainly ought to take such steps as would secure the money finding its way into the right hands.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

pointed out that one of the chief duties of the Commissioners would be to determine who were the managers of schools, and they would do that according to the varying circumstances of the cases. If a hard-and-fast line was to be drawn by the Statute, there would, practically, remain nothing for the Commissioners to do.

MR. ERRINGTON

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would make the Bill not only worthless, but injurious. He took it that the intention of Parliament was to raise the general standard of intermediate education in Ireland; to induce able men to take part in the educational work—instead of mere adventurers, who look up "cramming" as a profession—and also to raise up permanent institutions for intermediate education. Not one of these points would be gained by giving certain prizes for what he might call hot-bed students. He objected to any system which would have the effect of transforming the intermediate schools into a class of "cramming" institutions.

MR. FAWCETT

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard raised two questions of extreme importance in connection with education. Looking at the question solely from an educational point of view, he wished to consider it with regard to the novel principle which it introduced—a principle which, if it was drawn into a precedent, would not only do great harm to Irish education, but would re-act prejudicially upon English education. Hitherto, two distinct principles had been resolutely acted upon with regard to the distribution of public money in aid of education—firstly, that the schools receiving grants should submit themselves to inspection by properly appointed public authority; and, secondly, that the teachers in such schools should have certificates of efficiency. Further, it had always been insisted upon that Parliament should know explicitly into whose hands grants of public money went for distribution. As far as he could see, this Bill set at nought each of these, which he had always regarded as cardinal principles, in reference to the granting of public money for educational purposes. His own view was that the main object of many of his hon. Friends who sat near him was to promote not so much intermediate, as denominational education in Ireland. He could not, in any circumstances, consent to depart from the principle of inspection—a principle which, he thought, was one of the utmost importance, in that it enabled the Education Department to know something of the schools beyond the point of mere educational and examinational efficiency. He hoped some assurance would be given on this point before the Committee disposed of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard. The question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), as to the hands into which the money grants were to go, was one of the utmost importance; and he hoped the Government would give their serious attention to it. Unless it was most clearly defined who were the managers, there was no security that any portion of the results fees would go to reward the teachers who had brought about the results in question. What security would Parliament have that the teachers were not under the thumb and control of some ecclesiastical authority, who would deny them any right to the smallest part of the results fees which they had, practically, earned? Looking at the question from an economical, as apart from an educational, point of view, he thought the duty of the House of Commons was clear. They had to dispense public money, and they ought to take every care and security possible to have defined, with the utmost distinctness, the purposes to which the money was to be devoted, and the hands into which it would pass. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) had said, in answer to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard, that if money was given in prizes instead of in the shape of payment for results, it would prove a great encouragement to "cramming." He could not understand this argument; because the interest of the teacher in such a case would not be to select special pupils for "cramming" purposes, inasmuch as the pupil, and not the ''crammer," would be rewarded. In the case of payment for results, on the other hand, it would not be the "crammed" but the "crammer" who would reap the reward. He could not help thinking that the argument about "cramming," which he should not have used—for he objected to it—if it had not been introduced into the debate, was often in the mouths of persons who objected to all systems of examination in any shape. His own experience, both as one who had been examined and had conducted examinations on many occasions, led him to the conclusion that, properly conducted, examinations threw extraordinary light upon the individual capacity of the persons examined. He thought it was possible to escape from the dilemma by adopting the English system in reference to payment for results by submitting the schools to public inspection. If the proposal for such inspection was refused, they could only conclude that it was refused for some very good and strong reason. Believing that the grounds for the refusal, and the refusal itself, would not promote the cause of education in Ireland, he should have no alternative but to support the Amendment.

MR. BUTT

thought the point which had been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was a mere bugbear, which could be removed by a slight change in the draft of the Bill. As far as the question of the managers of the schools was concerned, he should think they would be the persons who managed the schools, and he saw no valid objection to such a body on the ground that it was or might be ecclesiastical in its character. If any attempt was made to alter the Bill in this particular respect, the result would simply be to mar the measure, as many other measures had been marred, by intolerance, though ostensibly framed for the purpose of serving Ireland. The person who managed schools and received the payments for scholars was, to his mind, the person who ought to receive the result fees. If the word "managers" required to be explained, let the explanation be given; but do not let the Committee forget the more important ques- tion—one of the most essential parts of this very imperfect attempt to stimulate and aid Irish intermediate education— namely, that all the attempts of the Government would be vain unless they could carry the convictions and affections of the Irish people with them. He would press upon the Government the fact that the Bill had been received with all but universal satisfaction by the people of Ireland; and that if the principle of payment for results was struck out of it, that feeling of satisfaction would disappear. The Irish people would not submit for a moment to the giving of Exhibitions and nothing more, because there were many schools—principally Protestant—which were richly endowed, and would train students specially for those Exhibitions; while the other schools, which had no endowments, would not be able to secure any of the prizes nor, in fact, any of the money which was set apart by the State for educational purposes in Ireland. To take the course which was involved in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard would be to put a weapon into the hands of those persons who wished to keep alive in Ireland the spirit of disaffection; and to reject the principle of payment by results would be to create a feeling of opposition to the Bill which could not but extend to an enormous extent. In Ireland they wanted something more than Exhibitions which would stimulate the activity of pupils and afford to them the means to prosecute their studies. They wanted, not an increase in the number of schools generally, but good intermediate schools; and these could not be secured unless encouragement was given to the teachers by the payment of results fees. How were good schools and schoolmasters to be got? There was certainly one way, and that was by undertaking the entire educational system; planting a school and a schoolmaster wherever they were wanted, and providing all the necessary funds. If that was done, the Government would have a perfect right to insist on public inspection of every school before making a grant; but nothing of the kind was proposed by the present Bill, and no Government in its senses would undertake so great a responsibility without greater deliberation than had been bestowed upon the present measure. The Government had under- taken a far more modest and limited operation—namely, that of encouraging schools which had hitherto carried on their work without any endowment from the State. The State said, practically— "We are neutral on the question of denominational education; we willingly ignore that question, because we leave religion to yourselves, but we will aid you on the one condition, that you give us a good manufactured article; give us educated men, and doing your own work, you may do it in your own way." The Government and the country owed much to the cause of intermediate education in Ireland, by reason of the fact that the lavish grants made in aid of primary education had checked some of the means by which education was in former time afforded. When he was very young, and before he was sent to one of the Royal schools, he received his education from a Methodist minister in his father's parish—an old gentleman who had the reputation of being the best classical scholar in the county—and who gathered round him pupils drawn from the middle class in society, some of whom were now clergymen holding high positions in the Roman Catholic Church, and others of whom were then, and still remained, members of the Protestant Communion. This was a case of mixed education, being given in what was practically a denominational school—a system which might, with advantage, be pursued in the future; but which would be materially impaired if the payment of result fees were not allowed to obtain. It was a mistake to suppose that the Government was establishing denominational education by paying results fees. The Irish people wished to see the principle adopted; the Government professed a wish to carry the Irish people with them; but they, at any rate, entertained, if they did not adopt it, a proposal which would run counter to the wishes of the people. Education did not consist in a pupil being able to pass a particular examination; therefore, he was strongly in favour of payment for results, in preference to the giving of prizes or Exhibitions for extraordinary proficiency in particular subjects; in fact, all he wanted, and all the Irish people wanted, was that the Government should give assistance to the existing schools, and establish others where they might be needed. The system of Exhibitions and prizes would tend to the encouragement of "grinders"—he disliked the appellation "crammers" as much as the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) did —instead of encouraging the real masters of the schools. The giving of Exhibitions and prizes would certainly create a demand for teachers; but they would not be teachers of the class likely to be most useful in the general work of education. He could not support those who wished to institute a system of inspection in intermediate schools, because it would involve a needless expenditure of time and money, and would lead to a great deal of bickering and quarrelling. Let the schools manufacture educated men in their own way, and they would be sure of their reward, without reference to the process of manufacture which they might choose to adopt. He was quite sure it would be better to let the Bill pass in its present form, than to run the risk, by attempting to improve it in essential points, of losing the confidence of the Irish people.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, they were told it was not enough to reward the scholars; they must reward the school teachers. Who were those teachers? Most of the schools were in the hands of the religious Orders or other Roman Catholic priests. The regular or Monastic Orders of the Church of Rome would not submit their establishments to inspection. Why, then, should they endow schools which would not submit to their inspection? He perceived a secondary object in this Bill. If they made these payments to these schools, they would contravene the law by which these Monastic establishments were held to be illegal. The promoters of this scheme were aiming at the repeal of the law which declared these institutions to be illegal. There were legal as well as constitutional objections to making payments to these schools. This was an objection recognized by most of the countries of Europe; and while he would vote for the payment of the educated man, he objected to pay for schools which were so constituted that they rejected inspection. Were they driven to this—that they must contravene the law? If they endowed Monastic schools, they would raise additional obstacles to the erection of independent schools such as that in which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was educated; they would raise a barrier against enterprize in that form. Let them adopt the Amendment now before the Committee, and go straight to their object, which he admitted to be legitimate—the encouragement of intermediate education. He would do much to meet the wishes of the Irish people, for he was convinced it was the want of education which made them so dissatisfied; but when they asked him to encourage Bodies known to disseminate principles which produced alienation, he replied that if they could attain their object by other means, they ought to adopt those means, and not go out of their way to endow establishments and an anti-national system under which a largo portion of the Irish people was now enthralled.

MR. SULLIVAN,

in listening to the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, thought the Committee must have been very much reminded of a character in one of the stories of Charles Dickens, who was continually referring to the head of Charles I. He was waiting during that speech in order to see when the Jesuits and Cardinal Cullen would make their appearance. If the hon. Member would go over to Ireland, he would find that he was making a wail on the floor of the House all too late; for if it were illegal to recognize the existence of religious Orders of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland by giving them what he (Mr. Newdegate) called State endowments, he must learn that they enjoyed those State endowments already, and that, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant, they well earned the money which they received. At Glencree, in County Wicklow, he would find one of those religious Bodies conducting a school partly with the money given by the State; and there was no Government or Administration in Ireland the officers of which had not testified to the success of that experiment made in the direction of "concurrent endowment"—a phrase in many ears more mysterious and awful even than the word "Mesopotamia." Let the hon. Member go over to Ireland, and he would learn that the illegality of which he complained had been sanctioned by the Legislature of which he was a Member.

SIR PATRICK O'BEIEN

was aware that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had a craze upon the subject of Catholic institutions, and would, therefore, only address himself to one of his observations. The hon. Member had referred to the deleterious character of the education likely to be afforded by those establishments. The answer to this was that if managers in Ireland were to spend time in imparting to their pupils education of that kind, they would not be likely to receive a very large amount in result fees. In matters of education he was with Bishop Butler, who drew the distinction between the terms "emulation" and "envy," that the one regarded a person in the hone of being raised to a higher level, while the latter described the feelings that would drag another man down. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was in favour of levelling up. With reference to the kind of education received at intermediate schools, he remembered that when he was at Trinity College, Dublin, they were generally over-weighted by the students who came up from those schools; but who, after their first year, did not retain their superiority, and this Bill would, in some degree, remedy that inequality. Every hon. Member of his persuasion should assist in passing the Bill, in order to give encouragement to the schools, and enable themselves to meet their fellow-countrymen on an equal footing. He put it to the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), whether he intended to put his philosophical views against the unanimous opinion of the people of Ireland? With all deference to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), he would remind him that he was possessed of English prejudices, and had not for any great number of years been associated with his countrymen, the Irish. He expressed his thanks to the Government for the introduction of the Bill, which he trusted would soon pass into law; for it was, in his opinion, the best measure that had been introduced for many years with the object of benefiting the Irish people.

MR. EWART

was not insensible to the weight of the objections urged by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and he frankly confessed that it would be disagreeable to him, and against his feelings, to see result fees given to the religious Orders in the way indicated by the hon. Member, and as he had no doubt they would go if the Bill passed. Yet, looking at things as they existed in Ireland, he could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard, even though the Roman Catholics of Ireland got a share of these funds to aid in the better education of their youths. He very much doubted that if all the advantages were given in Exhibitions, as the hon. Member-for North Warwickshire proposed, it would serve the end he had in view; for what would be easier than to have an arrangement with the pupils that the Exhibitions should, in the main, go to the teacher. They wanted in Ireland two things—first, some aid to the teacher; second, some aid to the pupils. The latter the Bill proposed to give in the way of result fees, some of which would undoubtedly pass from the manager to the teacher. He had some experience in Ireland as a manager of a high-class intermediate school, and the great difficulty experienced was the want of means to pay first-class teachers. He hoped the Bill would pass, and he believed it would enable them to provide good teachers for the intermediate schools. He looked forward to a great improvement in the education of his countrymen; and, in his opinion, the Bill would give satisfaction, and tend to the happiness of the people of Ireland.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Grorst) had remarked upon the absence from the Bill of any definition of the term "manager." There should be no difficulty on this point; but, in his opinion, it would be very difficult to frame a wording that would assist anyone of ordinary intelligence in his endeavour to understand the meaning of the word "manager." He had just said that he was not in a position to afford the Committee information as to the component elements of the Board about to be appointed; but he could assure them that it was not intended to select gentlemen incapable of satisfying themselves as to the ordinary meaning of plain terms. He believed it would occur to every hon. Member that a definition of the word "manager" was unnecessary. Now, with regard to the payment of results fees. Something had been said about a guarantee that the money would go to the persons entitled to receive it; but was it to be supposed that it would be handed over to anyone who applied for it? Was it not more probable that the Board would apply the 7th subsection of the 6th clause, which afforded a guarantee that the money would only be paid to persons entitled to make application for it? The fees would go to the manager, who, in his view, was the person who "kept the bag," so to speak, and paid the teachers; and no one of average intelligence could go far wrong in determining who were entitled to receive the money. It was said in the course of the debate by the hon. Member for Liskeard, that "the Lord Chancellor had alluded to result fees as affording a good precedent." When the question of University education came to be dealt with, he (Mr. J. Lowther) had perused authentic records of what had taken place, and failed to find any such expression of opinion; and he, therefore, made bold to say that his noble and learned Friend had never said anything of the kind. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had stated that Parliament had always prescribed that public money should not be given in aid of education unless the schools were subject to inspection. He thought, if hon. Members would look, they would see that these conditions were strictly complied with in the Bill. They would see that by the 3rd clause of the Bill, the Assistant Commissioners should act, when required, as Inspectors as well as Secretaries. That, of course, contemplated the exercise, by the Board, of the power of inspection whenever it was thought fit. He was, therefore, justified in saying that not one sixpence would be given to an institution that was not liable to inspection. He thought the fees in question were needed to carry out the object of the Bill, which was the development and improvement of intermediate schools, and, when it was required, the calling into existence of new ones. With regard to Exhibitions, he thought if these, whether great or small, were given to any child, the parent might come in for a share; but that the last person likely to get any of the money would be the teacher. With reference to the supposed enforcement by managers of a condition that a proportion of the Ex- hibitions should go to them, he would say that that would be obtaining, in a covert way, the object the Government desired to keep above board. He hoped the Committee would retain the words proposed to be omitted.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), in his opinion, had not been very successful in reminding the Committee of the results of the Catholic suppression in Germany. He did not think that Germany could be congratulated on the production of that distinguished non-Catholic, Dr. Nobiling. Again, he could not but think that all those expressions of terror, horror, and fear came with singular inappropriateness from an Englishman; because it was a fact that not the worst part, but the best and highest part, of popular education in England was almost exclusively in clerical hands. He did not know that the pupils of Harrow, Eton, and Rugby were distinguished by anything deleterious as regarded the education they received. Some fear had been expressed on that side of the House at the Papal character of the education which the fees were to reward and encourage. He would venture to give the Committee an illustration of the character of the education likely to be so rewarded and encouraged. It was but the other day that a deplorable accident happened at Oxford. A brilliant young student of Pembroke College, holding a Scholarship was, unfortunately, drowned in the river. That student, who was already regarded as certain to attain the highest distinctions at Oxford, had been a pupil and student of Queen's College, Galway; but had previously been through a lengthened course in a Catholic school, conducted not only by Catholic teachers, but by Catholic ecclesiastics. On the news of his sad death reaching Galway, one of the Professors of the College, with grief and feeling, which astonished no one, read a notice of the young pupil, and in the course of that notice he remarked that on the entrance of young O'Connor into Queen's College, he was already possessed of a sound classical knowledge, and the ordinary subjects of intermediate education, and was not to be surpassed in Greek by the captains of Eton, Rugby, Cambridge, or Oxford. This was the testimony of the Professor of Greek, with regard to the education given in a Catholic intermediate school; and he (Mr. O'Donnell) was quite certain that the fact of their being Catholic would not, in the mind of any Member of the House who loved education, be an obstacle or objection to the payment of result fees to such managers and teachers who were capable of turning out men equal to his old friend George O'Connor.

MR. HIBBERT

inquired of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther), whether he would consent to insert in Clause 6, Sub-section 7, after the word ''describing," the words "by inspection or otherwise." He had gathered from the speech which he had just made that he considered inspection to be provided for in the Bill; and there could, for that reason, be no objection to the insertion of those words. It seemed to him that the addition proposed would carry out the views of the right hon. Gentleman, and be of great use to many hon. Members who had spoken in favour of the Amendment. He could not support the Amendment, and thought that the proposal contained in the sub-section then under discussion was very much in accordance with the system carried out in this country. He could conceive no reason why the Government proposal should not be adopted.

MR. J. LOWTHER

could not agree to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), as he did not think any alteration necessary.

MR. COURTNEY

explained, that in his reference to the speech of the Lord Chancellor, he did not say that the noble and learned Lord spoke of result fees as creating a precedent. The Lord Chancellor had declared that the present Bill was a preparation for legislation in respect of Universities; and it therefore followed that anything done in the present Bill must necessarily be of great weight at any future time, in defence or extenuation of any new proposals of the same character. With respect to inspection, the Bill provided none, in the sense in which his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had used the word. Payment by results hitherto had had a totally different meaning from payment by results in the Bill. In payment by results under the board school system, and under the voluntary system they were dealing with organizations, and they inspected organizations. They inspected the organization for primary schools, the results of which they were going to pay for, and they did precisely the same in respect of voluntary schools. In this case, there was no inspection whatever of the organization of intermediate schools. The only thing they were going to ask for was that a manufactured article of a certain quality should be turned out. If that were so, why incur the inconvenience of dealing with managers? Why not deal at once with the manufactured article? Here he would refer to the most interesting experience of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). He referred to the time when he was a boy, and to the schools which then existed in Ireland. But these schools were supported because they turned out good scholars. Owing to the reputation thus secured, scholars came to them; and, in the same way, if the lads themselves, or their parents, were paid, instead of the manager, voluntary schools would spring up and prosper, because the turning out of successful boys would be resorted to, and boys would come to them. Thus, in order to obtain prizes, parents would patronize the schools where the education might be relied upon to produce that success. In that way only could they secure the improved education which was the main object of the Bill. They must remember that in this Bill they were only dealing with a prize boy, and unless they went and examined the school itself, and saw its working, they could not tell whether a thoroughly good education was being generally given. But, dealing, as they necessarily must, with the manufactured article, he asked whether they did not secure it much more conveniently, and without the disadvantage attending this scheme, by paying directly to the parent instead of to the manager? Who was the manager? The Government might say that the recipient of fees was the manager. Well, suppose the master got a certain portion of the tuition fees, was he the manager, or the person who appointed him? They could not get out of that. But there was another difficulty. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick said he did not care whether it was a denominational school or not. But if they were dealing with the managers of a school, they must take care to secure this elementary condition —that all boys should have equal power to resort to that school. They were bound, if it was a denominational school, to see that it was so guarded and checked by a Conscience Clause that all boys might go to it, otherwise they were not dealing fairly with all classes, and they were devoting money to a public school to which a certain section of their boys might be unable to go. So that directly they dealt with the managers, they had this difficulty of a Conscience Clause, without any corresponding advantage. All the educational advantages hoped for would be secured by increasing the Exhibitions and prizes to the boys. On these grounds, he must press his Amendment.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) appeared to have had his orders to stick to every letter of the Bill; but he must warn the Government that if they were going to continue as inflexible with regard to Amendments which had yet to be proposed in this Bill as they had hitherto done, it would be fatal to its progress. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members around him, who had been accustomed to obstruction, said "Oh, oh!" but they must remember that the points which had been raised that night were of the deepest importance, and they must not be angry with him and other hon. Members if they felt rather inclined to insist upon them. But he desired to disclaim any sympathy with the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate); and if the Committee would give him their attention for a moment or two, he should show the real distinction there was between the argument which had been used on the opposite side of the House, and that which had been advanced on his side. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire occupied a position which was very different from that which he, for instance, occupied. The hon. Member, having supported denominational education in England, and believing that English children who were not taught religion would be damned, was perfectly willing that Irish children should be damned. He did not sympathize with that sort of argument, nor did he go with the hon. Member at all in the attack which he had made upon Roman Catholics. That was not the point before the Committee. The point which had been raised by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Courtney) and others was, whether or not, as this was a Bill which professed to be in aid of intermediate secular education—a principle which he had always and still supported—it was right that the matter should be so arranged as that there should be incidentally a concurrent religious endowment. That was a very different question from that raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite. They simply adhered to the principle of secular education, and objected to any endowment of any religion whatever. He hoped it would not be thought that the time of the Committee had been wasted in pointing out that distinction. But the question now was—what were the Government going to do? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), had not given the Committee any satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that there was vested in the Board a certain power of inspection; but then it was a power which they were not bound to exercise, and the point which they put was this—was it, or was it not, right that payment for results should be allowed in cases in which the Board might, if it chose, decline to inspect the efficiency of the teachers, and the character of the education given in the schools? He thought it would be most dangerous if, with reference to Ireland, they introduced this entirely new principle; and he felt that, unless the Government were prepared to consider the matter, any opposition which should be offered to that principle as it stood in the Bill would be perfectly justifiable.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 165;

Noes 47: Majority 118. —(Div. List, No. 237.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Rules to be made by Board).

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that a point which had already been the subject of some discussion might, he thought, be conveniently referred to at this stage of the Bill. It was as to how far the Bill did, or did not, include the education of girls. He was free to confess that when he moved the second reading of the Bill—

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

I rise to Order. I wish to ask what is the Question before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman is explaining an Amendment, which I understand he intends to move to the clause.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that when he moved the second reading of the Bill, he was under the impression that as drawn it did not extend to the education of girls. Since the second reading, this subject had been very carefully gone into; and he was now informed that it was a matter certainly open to a good deal of legal doubt as to what the exact application of the present wording of the Bill might be. He believed that those hon. and learned Gentlemen who were acquainted with what was known as Lord Brougham's Act would understand the nature of the doubts that had arisen; and certainly, so far as the Government were concerned, they had no objection whatever to the benefits of this scheme being, in a reasonable way, thrown open to girls as well as to boys. He certainly should have objected to raising any question which might give rise to lengthened debates upon women's rights, or any topics of that kind; and if doubts had not arisen as to the construction of the Bill as drawn, he should have been disposed to deprecate the opening-up of a controversy which was not necessary to the fulfilment of the ostensible object with which the Bill was introduced. But as matters now stood, he would suggest that either now, or if the Committee did not like to adopt the words without Notice, on the Report, the following words should be introduced after Subsection 3:— "For applying, as far as conveniently may be, the benefits of this Act to the education of girls." He might mention that these words were taken, as nearly as might be, from the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, and he thought they would meet every reasonable requirement. He begged to move the insertion of these words.

MR. COURTNEY

thought the Committee were in a somewhat unfortunate position in having this Amendment suddenly sprung upon them. As the words had not been put on the Notice Paper, the Committee could not easily judge of their effect. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they were taken from the Endowed Schools Act of 1869; but their experience of the working of that Act was not at all satisfactory. It was quite true that, under that Act, the Commissioners were instructed to do what they conveniently could in the way of promoting the education of girls; but, in point of fact, they had done next to nothing—he might almost say, nothing at all; and, as he believed that the benefits of the Bill, as it was at present drawn, were equally open to girls as to boys on precisely the same conditions, it was a limitation of the Bill, and not an enlargement of it, to insert a Proviso giving the Commissioners power to deal, "as far as conveniently may be," in their discretion, with the education of girls. In fact, the Bill, as it stood, did admit girls equally with boys to its full advantages. On that ground, he thought it would be inconvenient that a decision should be taken upon the point at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the matter might be deferred to the Report. Speaking for himself, he would rather have it deferred to the Report than that it should now be decided, for this reason—that the Amendment did certainly limit the Bill as it stood. The matter was now brought before them in a manner in which they could not possibly decide at once as to what was the proper plan to be adopted. This special Proviso clearly pointed to a different style of examination for girls from that for boys. Speaking for himself, he should most strongly deprecate any such distinction. The University of Cambridge had examined boys and girls under the plan of this Bill for many years. The boys and girls were admitted to precisely the same examination; the same papers were sent to them; and they were examined by the same Examiners. These local examinations had been conducted with so much success in the last year that, whilst there were 2,800 junior boys, there were 1,216 junior girls; and whilst there were 935 senior boys, there were 856 senior girls. The experiment had been tried for many years in this country with success, and the precedent might, he thought be followed with advantage in Ireland.

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down must entertain some doubt as to whether the Bill, as it stood, would apply to the education of girls; otherwise, he would scarcely have given Notice of an Amendment which had been placed in his name on the Paper. Yet, when the Government generously and opportunely came forward with an Amendment of their own, in order to remove all doubt in the matter—an Amendment which would, he believed, be quite as effectual as that of the hon. Gentleman, and quite as easy of comprehension—the hon. Gentleman, for reasons which he could not understand, declined to accept their proposal, and desired to withdraw his own, thus leaving the whole question at issue in a state of uncertainty. As to the Endowed Schools Act, the reason why so little had been done under its operation for the education of girls was that the funds had to be administered under the restrictions of trusts, which did not exist in the present case.

MR. STANSFELD

said, as he took a very great interest in the question under discussion, he was not disposed to run any risk with regard to it; and he could not, therefore, concur in the course which the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) wished the Committee to adopt. The proposal of the Government was, he thought, well entitled to their favourable consideration, and he hoped it would be accepted. He, at all events, was prepared at once to close with the offer which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther), and to agree that this Amendment should be at once inserted in the clause. If any further question should arise with respect to it, it might be dealt with on the Report. He did not, however, think that any difficulty would arise, because the words of the Amendment were taken from the Endowed Schools Act of 1869; and, in his opinion, the amount of discretion which the Amendment would give to the Commissioners might very fairly be vested in them.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA,

while he should not object to the Amendment of the Government — the concession made in which he hoped would not be carried further—said, he certainly should offer his most strenuous opposition to the Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). It should be borne in mind that the fund to be disposed of under the Bill was not very large, and, indeed, was not sufficient to provide for the requirements of the male youth of Ireland; and, therefore, it would not be expedient that it should be divided equally between girls and boys.

MR. HERSCHELL

believed, that as the Bill stood it would apply to boys and girls alike; but expressed a hope that, in order to clear up any ambiguity which might exist, the Amendment of the Government—which, in his opinion, would be perfectly sufficient to carry out the object in view—would be accepted by the Committee.

MR. MELDON

said, it was supposed by some hon. Members that girls would be treated more favourably under the Bill, in its present shape, than if the Amendment of the Government were adopted. But, be that as it might, the course which the Government had taken in dealing with the question appeared to him to be most extraordinary. Both in that House and in the other House of Parliament, it had been distinctly stated that the Bill had been drafted with the view that it should not apply to girls; and that, upon that point, the Government would not give way. Why, he should like to know, did they now propose to deviate from that policy? Was it because they were convinced that they were originally wrong? Nothing of the kind. It was simply because a mistake had been made of their draftsman, and that it had been found that girls might obtain some advantages under the Bill as it was drawn. For his own part, he was not one of those who objected to a reasonable provision being made for the education of girls; but he certainly objected strongly to the victory which the proposed Amendment would give to the advocates of women's rights, whose object was not that there should be a limited measure dealing specially with the education of women, but that the same education should be given to girls as was given to men. How did matters really stand with regard to the question? For years and years the subject of intermediate education had been discussed and pressed on the attention of the House. When the present Bill was at length introduced, not a word was said about afford- ing any aid as to the intermediate education of women; and he would point out that in Ireland the same necessity did not exist for any such aid as existed in the case of boys. Ireland was studded over with exceedingly good schools for the education of girls; but for boys no such provision was made. The result was that while girls could be satisfactorily educated in that country, it was found necessary, in many instances, to send boys belonging to the same class for the purpose of education to England. There was only a sum of £1,000,000 available for educating boys under the Bill; and the result of extending its provisions to the education of girls, as was proposed, would be to render it entirely useless and inoperative, as it was, to a great extent, already, seeing that the amount to be disposed of was so small. It was not, he contended, a right course to adopt to change the vital principle of the Bill, simply because the Government draftsman had made a mistake. He hoped, therefore, that the question would not be pressed further that evening, and that it would be fully considered before the Report. If it was really advisable that some provision should be made for the intermediate education of girls in Ireland, then let that be done after due deliberation, and not in the hurried manner in which the Committee was now asked to proceed.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

could assure his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down that the question at issue was not one of women's rights, but simply of their education, and that the object of the Amendment was nothing more nor less than to educate the women of Ireland, that they might be better able to discharge their duties as daughters, wives, and mothers. There were in Ireland, it was quite true, already excellent institutions for the purposes of female education; but it could not be justly said that that education stood in need of no stimulus. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) would place boys and girls on a perfect level in matters of education. He would have them submitted to the same examination, and, for all he knew, would establish competitions between them. Now, identity of education might do very well in theory in England, though he doubted whether it was found to answer in practice; and the hon. Gentleman, he ima- gined, hardly supposed that those girls who passed the Oxford and Cambridge examination, were fairly representative of the girls of this country. But, however the case might be in England or Scotland, Ireland did not want the same thing; and any attempt to establish identity of education as between Irish boys and girls would, he felt satisfied, end in failure.

MR. J. P. CORRY

was very much obliged to the Government for having proposed the Amendment, and thought the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) would do well to accept it; for it was calculated, in his opinion, to confer very great advantages in connection with the cause of female education in Ireland. He was, he must confess, astonished to hear the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) object so strongly to the proposal; but, for his own part, he entirely approved of it, and hoped the Government would adhere to it.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not think the question before the Committee was one which exactly concerned women's rights, although it might very easily become a question of women's wrongs. For his own part, he could see nothing more reasonable than that money, which was about to be appropriated to the advancement of intermediate education in Ireland, should, "as far as conveniently might be," be employed in promoting the education of girls. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had told the Committee that a vital principle of the Bill was that no attention should be paid to their education; but the hon. and learned Gentleman could, he thought, scarcely have been serious in making that statement. After all, it should not be forgotten that the very monies from which the endowment under the Bill was to come, had been used, whether rightly or wrongly, for the advantage of both men and women; and although it might be true that there were already good schools for girls in Ireland, the Committee would, he could not help thinking, make a very great mistake if they allowed the Bill to pass without making, as far as it could be reasonably done, some provision for the education of the female population of that country. The way in which the Government proposed to carry out that object was, it seemed to him, on the whole, better than the mode suggested by the hon. Member for Liskeard. It was rather a strong thing to say that no discrimination should be made between the sexes in the matter, and he felt thankful to the Government for the very reasonable course which they had adopted.

MAJOR NOLAN

hoped the hon. Member for Liskeard would be satisfied with the manner in which it was proposed by the Government to extend the benefits of the Bill to the education of girls. After all, the real object which the Committee ought to keep in view was the best mode of assisting those of the middle classes in Ireland, whose incomes were limited, in educating their children, and it did not so much matter whether the money was spent upon girls or upon boys. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) appeared to be of opinion that the money would go but a very little way in promoting education if it were divided between the two sexes. That, he thought, was a view of the matter which was entitled to attention; and it would be well to consider whether the fund to be disposed of under the Bill could not be increased, so as to meet the requirements of both.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

was not an advocate of what were called women's rights; but he knew that there existed a considerable deficiency in the means of providing female education in Ireland; and he, therefore, cordially supported the Amendment, which would, he felt sure, be received with great favour by all classes in that country.

MR. COURTNEY

would offer no further opposition to the Amendment proposed by the Government, although he certainly preferred his own, which he should reserve to himself the right of bringing forward at some future stage of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. E. JENKINS

wished to propose an Amendment which, he said, was, in his opinion, necessary for the purpose of securing that literature and languages should, in some shape or another, form part of a boy's studies under the operation of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor, in "another place," had made a very startling statement, which he drew from the Report of the Commissioners in 1871.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the hon. Gentleman was not in Order in referring to a debate which had taken place in the other House during the present Session.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, he had not referred to any debate, but simply to a statement which had been made in "another place," drawn from the Census Commissioners' Report of 1871, to the effect that only 13,814 were engaged in learning in the schools in Ireland Latin, or Greek, or other languages, or mathematics, and that in one county there was in a particular school only one boy learning any one of these subjects. The Committee would at once see the importance of that statement, because it would serve to show what might be the character of the education which would be given under the operation of the Bill, when a very great improvement was made in the teachers in those intermediate schools. Now, what he proposed, in order to meet that difficulty, was nothing very dangerous. If hon. Members would turn to the Schedule of the Bill, they would find that the subjects of examination set down there were six in number—namely, Latin and Greek languages and history, English language and history, foreign languages and history, mathematics and the natural sciences; and then came, lastly, the very vague definition—"Such other subjects of secular education as the Board may from time to time prescribe." The Committee would at once perceive how the number of "such other subjects," relating to commerce, or something of that sort, might be enlarged; and, if any hon. Member would look at the Schedule, he would also find that a student would be obliged to answer satisfactorily in only two subjects in order to pass, and three in order to take honours. Now, that being so, there was not the slightest provision, he contended, made in the Bill to secure that under its operation even an elementary knowledge of literature or languages should be obtained. It was to remedy that defect that he proposed to add to Sub-section 4 of the clause the words "subject to the conditions of this Act." It was not an unreasonable proposal, because it would secure that the elements of four subjects, at least, should be taught to the students. He ventured to submit to the Committee that some such provision as this was essential, when they found that the Government were unwilling to have inspection, and unwilling to give the House satisfaction as to the character of the education which was to be given. Hence he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would see his way clear either to adopt his proposal, or one similar to it.

MR. J. LOWTHER

agreed with a good deal of that which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins); but he hoped he would not press his Amendment, as he would consider some of the points on Report.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, there was a word used in the Schedule to which he desired to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. That was, as to the various modes in which the word "subject" was used. It was quite necessary to have an interpretation of that word. In one place it was used as representing a whole class of subjects; whereas, in another case, it obviously applied to one thing only. Therefore, the interpretation he asked for was necessary.

MAJOR NOLAN

entered his protest as to the degradation which he thought the Bill would cast upon mathematics and the natural sciences if the Amendment was accepted. Such a course he strongly objected to.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he should not like to agree to the Amendment if he thought it degraded mathematics and the natural sciences. The Amendment provided, as he approved, for the study of literature; but that would not prevent the study of mathematics. Anyone who was familiar with Universities or intermediate studies must have seen that certain subjects of natural and physical science were constantly taken refuge in by boys who tried to earn a reputation. But under the present Bill that could not be done. He thought nothing could be more suitable than the study of literature; and he considered the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee very valuable, so as to insure the proper teaching of classics. At present, classics were taught in Ireland; but the teaching did no intellectual good to nine boys out of ten. If it was made a point that mathematics be studied properly, and not in a slip-shod way, the Bill would do a good deal to raise those studies from the discredit into which they were falling.

MR. BUTT

did not say that the Amendment would degrade mathematics; but he strongly opposed taking such questions as it involved out of the discretion of the Board.

MR. E. JENKINS

withdrew his Amendment, but again wished to point out how very important the subject was. They were giving money, as the Bill stood, without any security as to the inspection of the schools. That being so, he hoped, on Report, the Government would take the means of securing that which his Amendment aimed at.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. GORST

moved an Amendment to Sub-section 7, with the view of seeing fees paid were properly applied. He did not for a moment say the managers of schools were not efficient bodies; but Parliament ought to see that the fees received were applied for the purposes of the Act, which were to improve intermediate education in Ireland. He might remind the Committee that in the case of the Elementary Education Act for England, there were the most ample securities that the fees which were received by the managers should be applied to improving the education given. Without wishing to discuss the regulations laid down by the Board, he thought there should be ample provision for the due application of the money which might be received.

MR. J. LOWTHER

did not think the Amendment was necessary, because the object of his hon. and learned Friend was attained by Clause 5 of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

MR. FAWCETT

said, he had an Amendment to move which he was sorry was not on the Paper; but he had desired to see the results of previous Amendments before he put it. His proposal was to the effect that in cases where money was paid, the schools should be inspected. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said more than once that inspection was provided for in the Bill. He (Mr. Fawcett) was perfectly aware that it was; but it did not, in the slightest de- gree, follow that the inspection contemplated would be secured. He thought it a very unfortunate thing that the House should depart from a very important principle and a very important precedent, which had been uniformly observed in Acts relating to education—and that was, whenever money was given as payments for results in those cases, public money being so given, public inspection should follow. The Committee having decided, by a large majority, that payments by results should be maintained, of course, those who objected to such a course were bound to accept their decision. Therefore, he did not, in the slightest degree, wish to revive a controversy which had been settled, or in any way alter the intentions of the Committee by anything like a side-wind. He accepted it as absolutely decided, that there should be, as regarded intermediate education, payments for results, just in the same way as it was provided under the Elementary Education Act in England. But such payments ought necessarily to be followed by inspection; and, although the Bill provided for inspection, his Amendment had for its object making the intentions of the Bill more precise as to attaining the real principle of inspection. He therefore moved his Amendment, which simply asserted that in every case where managers received money as payment for results, in those cases, the schools superintended by such managers should be inspected under the authority of Parliament.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 10, after the word "Schedule," to insert the words "for the inspection of the schools the managers of which received any payments under this Act."— (Mr. Fawcett.)

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment. His hon. Friend the Member for Hackney would see that the first thing which would arise if his proposal were adopted would be to add very largely to the working expenses of the Act. Incidentally, no doubt, they did comtemplate inspection under certain conditions; but inspection was to be the exception, as the Government did not contemplate that the Board would find it necessary to adopt constant inspection. But whenever there was reason to believe that inspection was necessary, it would be adopted.

MR. E. JENKINS

hoped the hon. Member for Hackney would press his Amendment. The Committee had no guarantee of efficiency; there was no certainty that proper subjects would be taught, and there was not to be any inspection. He ventured to ask the Committee, whatever the other House might do, whether it was right to pass the Bill in its present form? It was a matter for consideration—after the discussion which had taken place that night, after the manner in which it had been shown that the Bill failed in almost every particular to secure anything like efficient education or an efficient result for the money to be paid—whether the House should allow it to pass?

MR. BUTT

said, the Amendment, if carried, would mean the total re-casting of the Bill, and a departure from every principle laid down in it. There was inspection in the Bill, but it was very wisely limited. He asked the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), and the other Members who supported him, whether they thought they had a better knowledge of the wants of the Irish in respect to intermediate education than the Irish Members, and whether they thought they were better judges of the way to manage such education than the Irish Members? What was the object of the inspection proposed? The real fact was that if they inspected they controlled; and he considered the real meaning of the proposal was to put the whole of the schools under the control of the Government, and to allow them to interfere with their internal arrangements. He assured the Committee that the proposal of the hon. Member for Hackney must end in total failure. The parties who were proposing and supporting the Amendment knew nothing about the wants of Ireland. He was glad to see that the Scotch Members, generally, who took part in the discussion, had spoken temperately and with a knowledge of affairs; but, at the same time, he must say he considered it a very suspicious thing that the Paper should be black with Amendments by English and Scotch Members, while not a single Irish Member had one proposal to alter the Bill. He repeated, this was a very suspicious thing; and, seeing that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney was a complete departure from the whole principle of the Bill, he hoped the Government would act upon their own judgment of what was right and reject the Amendment, not heeding the temporary obstruction which had been offered to the passing of the measure.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, it was quite impossible to carry out inspection under the Bill as it stood. It was quite certain that the schools would be conducted by religious Orders, and it was well known that they would not be subject to inspection.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

could not help thinking that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was singularly inconsistent. He said there was inspection in the Bill; but that, if it was to be made a reality, as proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney, the Bill would require re-casting.

MR. BUTT

desired to correct the statement of the hon. Member for Londonderry. What he did say was that there was limited inspection provided for in the Bill; but that if extended, as proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney, the Bill would require re-casting.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, it really amounted to this. If the Conscience Clause, to which they would presently come, was to be anything else than a sham, inspection would be absolutely necessary. That was the only way by which they could be sure that the Conscience Clause would be a reality. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had told the Committee plainly enough that inspection was to be the exception and not the rule. Why was that to be the case in reference to an Education Bill for Ireland? The House would not allow any public money to be given for educational purposes in Scotland or England without adequate provision being made for inspection. This was done for two reasons. The first purpose was to insure respect for religious opinions, and prevent religious liberty being infringed upon. The second purpose of inspection was to see that the schools were efficient. To provide inspection for schools in Ireland, they were told, would destroy the Bill. He was quite aware of the reason why inspection was not provided in the Bill, and why it was objected to. The real reason for such a course of procedure was that it was a denominational Bill. It was a Bill for the purpose of endowing denominational education in Ireland. It was meant to be so, its operation must be so, and it was accepted as such by those who were greedy to accept it, and who knew that if it was altered as proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney, it would be destroyed as a purely denominational measure, and, therefore, would not be accepted by them. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick had plainly said that the alteration proposed, if conceded one jot or one title, would have the effect of qualifying the Bill, and, in. point of fact, making it worthless in the eyes of the Irish Members who supported it. In reality, this Bill, which was introduced at so late a period of the Session, after having been in the Government bureau for months, was to be thrust down the throats of hon. Members, and to be passed without any concessions being made to those who opposed it. Considering that not to provide inspection was contrary to the principle on which money was voted for education in England and Scotland, he should vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney if he divided the Committee, and as he hoped he would.

MR. EVANS

was desirous to see the Bill passed; but he could not conceal from himself the importance of the discussion which had taken place. What was the use of providing a Conscience Clause unless some kind of inspection was decided on? He certainly thought it necessary to provide for inspection, as suggested by the hon. Member for Hackney.

MR. BUTT

said, the Bill had, in its present form, been accepted by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike, without objection, and the animosity of the hon. Member (Mr. Charles Lewis) who had averred himself a strong Protestant, and who had said he represented a strong Protestant constituency, was not justified on the part of Protestants generally. He (Mr. Butt) must say this—that dealing with an intricate question the Government seemed to be satisfied that it would be better not to touch the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney. The Bill made certain things necessary for payment by results, and one of these was the provision of a Conscience Clause. No school whatever, conducted as an intermediate school, would consent to Government interference at every turn for the sake of payment by results. It was not a question of religious, but of gentlemanly, feeling, and both Protestants and Roman Catholics—and he must say it was only from Protestants that he had heard complaints—would indignantly object to it. If inspection was to be obtained, it must be purchased at a greater price than was offered for it in the Bill. They had within the limits of the Bill all the inspection that could be properly carried out. Any attempt to subject the intermediate schools of Ireland to a general inspection would, he believed, prove futile.

MR. MACARTNEY

was very much astonished to hear the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) say that all school managers in Ireland would object to inspection. For his part, he did not believe Protestant school managers would object to it in the least. Rather they would invite it. He thought it most extraordinary that the Assistant Commissioner should also act as Secretary and as Inspector. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick stated that when the Board thought it necessary they could send down an Inspector. That was to say, those gentlemen would send down one of themselves. If, however, they had onerous duties to perform, how could they afford time to inspect schools? He was also very much surprised to hear the Chief Secretary for Ireland say it would be impossible to provide funds for the inspection of schools. Surely, the number of intermediate schools could not be large. They were not by any means so numerous as the national schools, which, of course, required a great number of Inspectors. A couple of Inspectors would, perhaps, be all that was necessary, and he thought the money devoted to paying them would be very well spent.

MR. FAWCETT

interposed between the Committee and the division he was about to take, only for the purpose of entering his protest against the language used by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick in reference to the English and Scotch Members who happened to take part in that debate. He had distinctly referred to them as if they were guilty of an act of intrusion, and said— "What did they know about Irish education?" Now, he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Limerick that he (Mr. Fawcett) was just as sincere in this matter as he was. The hon. and learned Member warmly welcomed English assistance in carrying out his views on the Land Question, which was much more difficult for English Liberals to understand than this question of Irish Education. He was then as lavish in his praises of English Liberals as if they were the most enlightened of men; but when they happened to disagree with him the hon. and learned Gentleman changed his tone. Now, he (Mr. Fawcett) altogether objected to this attempt to separate English, Irish, and Scotch Members. To say that English Members should not concern themselves with Irish questions was introducing into that House Home Rule in its worst form. He put it to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick whether, if English Members were entitled to vote on such a complicated Irish question as Land Tenure, they ought not to express their opinions on the question of the inspection of schools? If inspection was good for education in England, it was good for it in Ireland. If it was necessary to have inspection in order to secure a proper expenditure of the public money devoted to education in England, it could not be less necessary to have the same sort of security for the proper expenditure of the public money devoted to education in Ireland. They did not wish to force inspection upon those schools which objected to it; but they did not do so in England. All they said was, if the managers of those schools wished to obtain certain payments, they must earn them in a certain way. There was no difference in this matter between England and Ireland. None, at any rate, had been pointed out, nor had any reason been shown why the same rule which applied to elementary schools should not apply to intermediate schools also. Some day or other the Bill would be drawn into a precedent for intermediate education in England. If it passed, it seemed to him absolutely impossible that the Conservatives and Liberals who supported it could refuse to extend to England the principle of payment without inspection. Feeling that an important principle was involved in this question, he thought it his duty to divide the Committee.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 126: Majority 84.— (Div. List, No. 238.)

MR. E. JENKINS

said, he did not know that he quite understood what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do in reference to the next Amendment on the Paper, which stood in his (Mr. Jenkins's) name. The Amendment was as follows:—In Clause 6, page 3, to add the following sub-section:— (10.) The rules shall provide, in the discretion of the Board, either that one of the subjects in the Schedule (1), (2), or (3), shall be necessary in pass and honour examinations, or that it shall be necessary for the student in either of such examinations to obtain one-third of the possible marks in any four subjects. He begged to move the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, this was the Amendment to which he referred at a previous stage of the discussion. If the hon. Member would withdraw it, he (Mr. J. Lowther) would consider it before the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (No payment unless conditions as to religious instruction be observed).

MR. FAWCETT

observed that they had now reached an hour at which they might fairly report Progress. It could not be said that the Movers of the Amendments had wasted a single moment of time. He had himself advised the withdrawal of an Amendment which might have occupied hours, and the discussion upon it did not last more than 20 minutes. They now came to the most important clause of the Bill, after he and other hon. Members had been in the House continuously since 7 o'clock— he meant the Conscience Clause. The Government surely did not expect to get the Bill through Committee at a single Sitting, considering that the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill had occupied nine nights. If this education measure was being considered for the first time in Committee on the 25th of July, he was not in the least degree responsible for it. He thought the wisest course they could now pursue, considering the importance of the subject and the lateness of the hour, was to report Progress, and, accordingly, he begged to move that they should do so.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Fawcett.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. He had mentioned the 25th of July; they were now actually at the 26th, and it was customary at that advanced period of the Session to prolong their discussions beyond the usual time. He hoped the Committee would make a little sacrifice of its convenience in order that the Bill might proceed. They had already got through the substantial part of the measure. No doubt, there would be some discussion upon the clause before them; but after it had been disposed of very little would remain, as it was his intention to accept some of the Amendments on the Paper. Under these circumstances, he trusted the Committee would proceed.

MAJOR NOLAN

begged the hon. Member for Hackney to leave the Irish Members this one night. They had not had one for a long time. All of them, with the exception of three or four, were anxious to go on with the Bill.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

supported the Motion, though he had no doubt that if the Government and the Irish Members wished it, they could force the Committee to sit longer, and treat all suggestions for an alteration of the Bill as they had treated them hitherto. He would remind the Committee that this was really a most important clause, and that, moreover, it was not the only subject on which discussion would arise. There was a very important Amendment in regard to national schools still to come —one which he was sure deserved careful consideration and discussion. Unless they were told they were bound to pass the Bill through Committee that night, he thought it hard that the discussion should be continued. He should certainly vote in favour of the Motion, out of regard for the interests of the people of Ireland — ["Oh!"] — at all events, of certain people in Ireland. With reference to a remark which had fallen in the early part of the evening from the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), he (Mr. Lewis) begged to say that he never spoke of himself as a representative of the Protestants of Ireland on this question. All he claimed for himself was that he represented a considerable number of persons in Ireland who thought deeply on this question, and who desired that their views should be laid before and considered by that House, though, like himself, they were perfectly prepared to be beaten. He thought it right to make these remarks, because the hon. and learned Member was entirely in error in supposing that he (Mr. Lewis) put himself forward as representing any body. That was to say, he did not represent any particular constituency, but only those persons who disagreed with the Bill.

MR. BUTT

said, he was glad to hear the hon. Member admit that he did not represent any constituency on this question.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 18;

Noes 134: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 238.)

MR. FAWCETT

said, that, although he still thought it extremely inconvenient to proceed with the Bill at that hour, there was nothing which he disliked more than for any hon. Member not to accept the decision of the House or of the Committee. He was perfectly satisfied, therefore, with the protest which had been made; and, after the division which had just taken place, he should offer no further opposition to the measure being proceeded with.

MR. J. P. CORRY

moved, in page 3, line 24, after "Board," to insert—"that such school is open during certain specified hours for secular instruction alone." His object was to secure that no children should be excluded from any school because of their religious convictions; but that they should have a full opportunity of receiving that instruction to which he conceived they were entitled under the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 24, after the word "Board," to insert the words "that such school is open during certain specified hours for secular instruction alone."—(Mr. James Carry.)

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

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, the Government and the Committee would be acting contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill if they accepted the Motion of the hon. Member.

MR. J. LOWTHER

did not conceive that there was any occasion for the Motion.

MR. NEWDEGATE

believed that no Amendment could make the clause anything but a pretence. A Conscience Clause without inspection was nothing but a trap for unwary parents, particularly in the case of Monastic schools.

MR. CHAELES LEWIS

said, he believed Parliament had been informed that this clause was framed upon the precedent of the Endowed Schools Act of 1869; but the fact was that it differed from the provisions of that Act as much as possible. The English Education Act provided that religious instruction must be at the beginning or end of school hours, so as not to interfere with a certain specified time for secular teaching which all the scholars might receive alike; but, under the clause which was now before the Committee, there was nothing to prevent the managers of schools from rendering it inoperative by refusing to receive scholars of particular classes and denominations. In England and Scotland schools were kept open to all comers, and the protecting influence of the Conscience Clause came in to prevent proselytism.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 32;

Noes 111: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 239.)

MR. COURTNEY

moved, in page 3, line 25, after "pupil," to insert— Is refused admission to such school on the ground of religious belief, and that no pupil. The Proviso was one which could not, he thought, be well refused. He regarded it as an important elementary principle that, if public money were to be paid to a public school, that school should be freely open to the children of the people who were ready with the necessary fees, and that the Board should not make any grant to the managers of a school unless it could be shown that no child had been refused admission on the ground of religious belief.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 25, after the word "pupil," to insert the words "is refused admission to such school on the ground of religious belief, and that no pupil."—(Mr. Courtney.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

pointed out that all the schools in Ireland were at the present time practically denominational.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the result fees to be given under the Bill would make it the direct personal interest of managers of schools to take as many pupils as they could.

MR. EVANS

said, that not very long ago a scheme was received from the Commissioners which had been adopted in the management of schools in the neighbourhood with which he was best acquainted—that of Derbyshire. One of the provisions of the scheme was that no pupil should be excluded in consequence of religious belief; and he did not see why that which was suitable for boarding schools in Derbyshire should not also be suitable in Ireland.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, it was impossible for him to look at the provisions of the Bill, from beginning to end, without being brought back to the conclusion that this was a measure for the endowment of denominational schools. He might be in a minority at the present time in that opinion; but in the course of the past week he had received communications from intelligent persons in Ireland, showing that they were beginning to understand the subject; and he was convinced that when the measure was actually in operation, some hon. Members would regret that they did not take up a different position from that which they had occupied in the course of the present discussion.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, reference had been made to the Endowed Schools Act of 1869; but he did not think that the interpretation which had been put upon that Statute was altogether correct. The sections of the Act which had been spoken of were not of general, but of special application; they did not say that every child, whatever his religion, should have a right to attend any school; but that if a child was entitled to admission on other grounds, he should not be excluded from attending a day school merely because of any difference in religion.

MR. COURTNEY

thought that compliance with the principle for which he contended could be secured by making it a condition of result fees that the managers of schools should receive such scholars as were brought to them.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

remarked, that if, in the case of the English Endowed Schools, when Parliament was not dealing with public money, but with private endowments, it was thought necessary to have a Conscience Clause, how much more necessary was it when dealing with public money, to have an effective clause of that description.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, it appeared to him that the proposal of the ton. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was altogether impracticable. If the hon. Member was not prepared to go further, it was simply childish and absurd to suppose that any adequate protection could be derived from his Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 28;

Noes 107: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 240.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Finance).

MR. CHILDERS

said, he desired to call the attention of the Committee to a point of considerable importance. Under the Bill a permanent Commission was about to be formed which would have the administration of large sums of public money devoted to secular education. This Commission would perform the functions of an ordinary Civil Department of the State. It was, therefore, desirable that the proceedings of that Commission should be brought under the review of the Legislature, and this could only be done by providing that the salaries of the Commissioners should be annually voted by Parliament, as was the case with every analogous Commission, whether the funds they administered were or were not voted by Parliament; such as the Endowed Schools Commission, the Charity Commission, the Copyhold Commission, the Education Boards, the Woods and Forests, and others. In the ease of the Greenwich Hospital Commission, which formerly was not voted by Parliament, the abuses were so great, mainly owing to the absence of annual review, that it was found necessary to charge them on the Votes of Parliament, repaying the amount from Greenwich funds into the Exchequer. There was no instance of a permanent Commission dealing with funds devoted to secular purposes, and acting as a Civil Department, not appearing in the annual Votes.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he saw no reason why Parliament should be asked to vote a sum of money which it did not provide, but which was to be provided from sources altogether independent of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman, however, would place upon the Paper the exact words of any Motion which he might contemplate on the subject, it would be duly considered by the Government.

MR. BUTT

said, that in the case of the Irish Church Temporalities Commission, whose members administered £300,000 a-year, all their expenses were paid out of the funds which they so administered, without being subject to the review of Parliament.

MR. CHILDERS

pointed out that the funds referred to by the hon. and learned Member were not applied to State purposes.

MR. E. JENKINS

thought that the provisions for auditing the accounts of the Commission to be appointed under the Bill were somewhat imperfect. This was an important matter, and he hoped care would be taken that the accounts were submitted to the Controller and Auditor General, and laid before Parliament.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, care would be taken that Government supervision was exercised in the auditing of the accounts.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that what was wanted was that the audit should not be by Government. The audit should be independent, and not under the control of the Government, and the proper authority was the Controller and Auditor General.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not state that the audit would be made by the Government, but that it would be conducted under Government superintendence. However, he was quite willing to consider the point which had been raised before the stage of Report.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.