§ (9.) £11,647, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland.
§ MR. A. MOORErose to call the attention of the House to the case of the Female Orphan Home. They had been told that the Institution had existed since 1800, and that ever since that period it had been charged in the Estimates under an arrangement sanctioned by the Act of Union. He did not wish to cast any reflection upon the present Administration, who, of course, were not responsible for the item; but it seemed to him that, practically, the Vote was moved for under false pretences. That particular Vote was placed in the Votes as if it were under the management of the Board of Superintendence; whereas, in point of fact, the Board had no control over the Institution whatever. So much so was that the case, that there was a Parliamentary Paper relating to the Hospitals under the Board of Superintendence, and no mention was made whatever of that Institution. Before they passed that Vote he thought they should have some explanation of the legality of the charge, or, at least, that it should be explained. It professed to be done under the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 16; but, for his part, he could see no legality in the charge. He did not wish to prevent the money being voted; but he thought that if the money were to be granted the House had a perfect right to know how it was being spent in that Institution.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that some explanation was required with regard to that item in the Estimates. The other night he was asked why that item was included in this Vote, and he explained how it came to be placed in the Vote. It had occurred to him that, perhaps, the charge ought, properly, to have come under the head of Industrial Schools. He had communicated with the authorities in Dublin; and he had ascertained that what he had previously stated was accurate—namely, that the Vote depended upon the Act of Union. It had, however, only been placed in that particular Vote 10 years ago, when it was transferred from another Vote which had been discontinued, and the various items of which it consisted had been distributed amongst other Votes. He thought 1606 that, at the time the grants were made, they were intended for grants-in-aid. As a matter of fact, as the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was well aware, this question had been brought under the review of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, and he had no doubt it would occupy a place in their Report. He did not know what would be the recommendations of the Commissioners; but, whatever they might be, they would receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
§ MAJOR NOLANexpressed his admiration of the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had talked for four minutes, and yet he had given them no information whatever in regard to this Institution. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would explain to them what all this meant.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, since the discussion on Friday evening, he had had some communication with Dublin, and he found that the allegations of some speakers, that this was a proselytizing Institution, were not correct. He was bound to say that it was not; and also, according to his information, it was very well managed. He did not desire, therefore, to say anything at all against the Institution, although he might remark that it was purely sectarian, and that its advantages were confined to members of one religious denomination. He wished the Committee to notice that fact, because it showed that Parliament did not hesitate to make denominational grants. He, himself, approved of such grants, and wished they were further extended. The Chief Secretary had not dealt with the real source of the complaint—that this Vote was placed under a heading which had nothing at all to do with it, and that the section of an Act—19 & 20 Vict.—was quoted which did not affect it. That Act dealt with hospitals and infirmaries. The Chief Secretary said this was probably an hospital, and therefore, according to him, the little girls in the Home were patients. But what, the Act also required was, that the Institutions dealt with under it should be placed under the Board of Superintendence.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERbegged pardon. He intended to state that this should, no doubt, have been placed under another head. He was afraid he had not made 1607 himself quite clear. What he stated was that the Vote was given in accordance with arrangements entered into at the time of the Union, and transfered to this Vote in consequence of the Report of a Commission about 10 years ago.
§ MR. GRAYsuggested that the better way would be to strike this item out, and to bring it forward as a Supplementary Vote. But he did not think the matter was of very great importance.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYagreed that the Institution was very well managed, and was utterly devoid of any proselytizing tendencies. At the same time, the Vote was presented in a form in which it ought not to appear.
§ MR. A. MOOREasked under what heading this Vote would be placed in the future? Further, if they granted this money in future years, under what inspection would the Home be placed? They had a perfect right to know what was done with the money, and that was a point he wished very strongly to impress on the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERreplied, that the whole subject would be fully considered before the Vote was asked of Parliament again, and, of course, the Report of the Royal Commission must be also considered; but he could not say under what head it would be included, or whether it would be again proposed at all; but it certainly should not appear in the Estimates again without being fully looked into.
§ MR. M. BROOKSsaid, since this Vote was before the House last time, he had made some inquiries, and he found this Home was the first female orphanage established in Ireland. In the year 1790 it had a grant of £500 from the Irish Parliament. It was attached to a college or chapel at which, for a great many years, he had attended Divine Service; and he was bound to say there were no proselytizing practices carried on during the time he had the privilege of attending there. At the time of the negotiations for the Union, a stipulation was made that the Imperial Parliament should allow a grant of £500 per annum to this Institution, and he hoped nothing would be done now to disturb the arrangement.
§ MR. GRAYpointed out that the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) was a very simple one. Either this Vote was 1608 sanctioned by 19 & 20 Vict., or it was not. If it was sanctioned by that Act, the Home should be under the Board of Superintendence. They had no right, if it was not, to vote the money under this head, and they could not get out of that dilemma; for, at present, the Home certainly was not under the Board of Superintendence. It was not a question of whereabouts in the Estimate to decide where the charge should go; but of deciding whether the Vote was sanctioned by an Act of Parliament. If it was not, by what right was it put in there?
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained, that the question of the arrangement of the Estimates was gone into about 11 years ago, when the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) re-arranged them, and, at that time, placed this particular sum under this heading. He would merely submit that the heading referred generally only to the items appearing under it, and there were many Votes under those heads which were in no way affected by the particular Act quoted at the top. There were other cases in the same position, where Votes were not governed by the particular Act quoted at the heading, but by others. He quite agreed, as his right hon. Friend had said, that the placing of this Vote under this heading was misleading; and if his attention had been called to it before, he would have placed it in another place, so that any difficulty of this sort would not have occurred.
§ MR. CALLANpointed out that on Friday—or, rather, at an unusually early hour on Saturday morning—the Attorney General for Ireland stated that this was one of the encumbrances handed over by the Irish Parliament to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that it was in consequence of specific statements in the Act that this Vote was taken. The Secretary to the Treasury had now made another statement, which did not at all corroborate that. He had made inquiry as to the Act, and he found that it was not based on any particular Act. The Secretary to the Treasury had said that there were other Votes in a similar position. He should like to ask which they were? [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Next page.] Well, all this only showed how careless and negligent, if not utterly incompetent, the under- 1609 strappers of the right ton. Gentleman had been in preparing this Vote. ["No, no!"] He maintained it only showed how utterly negligent they were in placing it before the House; and he would suggest that, another year, the Secretary to the Treasury should direct his subordinates to place on the Paper the specification under which this Vote was taken.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONobserved, that this Vote had been continued ever since, and had been placed in this particular clause on re-arrangement of the Estimates by a Committee who sat to diminish the number of headings. He had already stated that the headings in no wise governed all the Votes under it; but as the heading in this case was of a misleading kind, he would take care the change was made. He must protest distinctly against the accusation made against the very able clerks in the Department with which he was connected. Nothing could be more careful than the way in which the Estimates were prepared, and every desire was shown to give every possible information.
§ MR. RAMSAYthought some misapprehension had arisen, from the fact that some hon. Members had assumed that all sums voted in Committee of Supply must have statutory authority. That was an entire misapprehension, and the majority of the sums voted were voted without any authority other than the authority of the House, and they did not recognize any authority higher than that.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he was under no mistake, and did not suppose any such thing. Fortunately, he was well aware that such a safeguard was not required. What he maintained was, that on Saturday morning the Attorney General for Ireland stated that the Vote was proposed under an undertaking given at the time of the Union. He now wished the right hon. and learned Gentleman to point out the page on which such an undertaking was mentioned, which gave the House the authority in support of his assertion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would relieve them of a difficulty by replying: although he did not, for his part, see why they should vote this money, when they did not vote £500 for places of other denominations.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he 1610 would be very happy to help the hon. Member out of the difficulty. [Mr. CALLAN: No; the House.] Well, or the House. He thought, when attention was directed to this matter by the hon. Member for Clonmel, explanations were given by his hon. Friend, the Secretary to the Treasury, who was enabled, from the documents in his possession, to give a very considerable amount of information to the Committee on the subject. It appeared that this Vote, from a time long antecedent to the Union, was granted—first, by the old Irish Parliament, and was continued ever since the Union. He thought that was mainly the manner in which the reference to the Union came out, and that there was no dogmatic or positive assertion made. As to the assertion that there was any agreement which would prevent Parliament from saying they would not vote the money, he did not think that was for a moment suggested. The fact that this was on the Votes was proof that Parliament was quite competent to accept it or not; and it could terminate the grant either this year or next year, or could re-consider the whole matter, and deal with it in any way it thought proper. As he understood, the hon. Member for Clonmel objected more to the form than to the substance of the Vote, and his contention was that it ought not to come under this particular head. As a matter of law, it was not necessary that the Act under which the money would be dealt with should be stated in the heading; it was merely put there for the information of the House; and there was obviously now no misconception on the subject, and everything was known about this Home. The funds, and the character of its work, would be investigated before the Committee now sitting, and the result would be available in the next Session of Parliament. He thought they might now pass this Vote.
§ MR. A. MOOREdid not desire to press this matter further, because his whole object in bringing it forward was to show that, whereas this Home appeared to be under the governance of the Board of Superintendence, as a matter of fact they had no authority at all over it. He believed that proselytizing was not practised in the Institution, therefore he should be sorry that the Vote should be further objected to; and he merely 1611 thought it ought to be put under proper inspection, and that some guarantee should be given that the money would not be spent without inspection. He was quite content with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. GRAYwas also thoroughly content that the Vote should pass, now that the Committee thoroughly understood its nature. They were informed that they were bound by a clause in the Act of Union, and the Attorney General for Ireland would probably recall that fact to his mind. They now found that they were bound by no clause of any sort, and that this was purely a voluntary Vote. He was quite willing to join in a Vote to a purely denominational school, hoping to use that Vote as an argument by-and-bye. He sought for aid for denominational Institutions of this kind; and he hoped, therefore, hon. Gentlemen who joined in this Vote for an Institution without a "conscience" clause, or provision of any kind, would not refuse grants to well-managed institutions of a similar sort because they belonged to another religion.
§ MR. P. MARTINwas very glad of the discussion, because of the facts which had been elicited. Here they had a Vote of money to a purely Protestant Institution over which there was no Government control. He asked hon. Members to bear that in mind when they next heard taunts against Catholics for coming to that House and asking for grants for educational purposes, as to the due application of which they had been willing to submit to the most stringent Government supervision. Yet, though the majority in that House had so recently refused to sanction payment by results, or any grants in aid of Catholic Collegiate training, year after year they had passed a Vote of this character for a Protestant Orphan Home in Dublin. It was not creditable to the liberality of those hon. Gentlemen, who professed themselves opposed to any application of the public funds to denominational purposes in Ireland, to say that an examination of these Votes would show not a single shilling given to relieve the sharp pressing needs of the majority of the population, while there were many sums bestowed out of the Consolidated Fund each year to purely Protestant purposes, without any supervision or check.
§ MR. P. MARTINreplied, that the hon. Member for Tyrone was under a misapprehension. This school, it had been admitted, was not an industrial school, or under any Government supervision, nor was it under the Reformatory Acts.
MR. MACARTNEYobserved, that he said that the House would have objection to see all schools under Government supervision.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (10.) £123,944, Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiency.
§ MR. E. W. HARCOURThoped the noble Lord the Postmaster General would be able to give some assurance that the Government would turn their attention towards the important question of the increase of Post Office Savings Banks. The matter involved the interest of many millions of people in the country; and he trusted next Session to find a more auspicious moment for bringing it forward than had been accorded to him during the present Session.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERScould safely say that, as long as he had been in Office, his attention had been turned to this subject. In addition to the 6,000 Savings Banks, there was the Penny Banks movement, which was making great and satisfactory progress. He believed there were about 2,000 of these banks in existence; and, besides that, there were upwards of 1,100 School Banks. All these were regarded by the authorities as excellent allies, working cordially and harmoniously together. His attention had been constantly directed to the extension of the system, and everything that tended in that direction should always have his most careful regard.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (11.) £2,544, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain.
§ MR. CALLANthought there must be an error with reference to the amount allowed to one of the American pensioners for services rendered at the time of the Declaration of Independence. He also asked who were the refugee French 1613 clergy alluded to in the Vote, and what right they had to receive money from the House of Commons?
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the name of the American referred to in the Vote was Macdonald, who was in receipt of a pension of £11. He was a man of very considerable age; and although alive at the present time, he could not be expected to enjoy the Vote for any length of time. There seemed to be a discrepancy with regard to the matter of the French refugee clergy, and he would make inquiry into this, giving an accurate account of the transaction upon Report.
§ MR. CALLANasked that the Vote should be postponed, or reduced by the sum of £10. He did not see why they should support the descendants of French refugees.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had already made known, on the part of the Treasury, that they intended to re-consider these Votes.
§ MR. COURTNEYexplained that the Vote was for the stipend of two teachers attached to the French Chapel, where service was performed every Sunday in the French tongue. It might very well be that this Vote should by-and-bye cease, perhaps after the death of the present recipients.
§ MR. CALLANexpressed himself grateful to the secular Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) for his explanation; and trusted that, having defended this Vote, he would not come down to the House on his secular hobbyhorse and repudiate Votes on Irish topics.
§ MR. WHITWELLasked whether there was any possibility of commuting the pension which appeared by the Votes to have been in existence since the time of Charles II? He thought, if it could be commuted on any terms whatever, it ought to be done. He could understand how it was that this pension was not commuted, when the coal dues, on which it was settled, were taken over by the City.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdid not know that there was any power of commutation in respect of this pension without the assent of the parties, the sum having been granted by Letters Patent, and forming a first charge on the Revenue. The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had been taken, 1614 and they held that there was no power of commutation.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (12.) £2,802, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, with reference to the item for the Protestant clergyman of the French Church at Portarlington, that up to about 35 years ago the French Protestant service was held at that place; but the clergyman now only discharged the ordinary duties of the Protestant Church, which, as it had been disestablished in Ireland would, he thought, render it impossible that this Vote should be retained. No doubt, the clergyman had a kind of vested interest, which he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) would not like to disturb; but the Government should take care that there was no new appointment.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERagreed with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) upon this Vote. Of course, the House of Commons was always desirous that vested interests should be respected; but he confessed that a case had been made out that the appointment should not be renewed.
§ MR. CALLANasked when the Report would be brought up with reference to the Superannuation Allowances to Prison Officials, so that the Committee might know when they would have an opportunity to discuss the matter?
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it had already been reported.
§ MR. CALLANasked for an explanation of the item of £3,000 for Charitable Allowances. He did not think this sum should be voted without knowing what it was for.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it was for persons in distress, and was analogous to the Royal Bounty.
§ Vote agreed to.