SECOND READING. (Hansard, 15 August 1881)

§ MR. HEALY
rose to Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been appointed one of the Committee that had just been ordered to withdraw, and he still retained his seat on the Treasury Bench.

§ MR. HEALY
again rose to Order. The right hon. Gentleman had just been ordered to withdraw, and had not done so.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The right hon. Gentleman is quite in Order in moving the second reading of this Bill; and I have put that Question to the House.

§ MR. HEALY
asked whether he could raise the question of Privilege? This proceeding affected the Privilege of the House of Commons, inasmuch as the Order of the House had been disobeyed.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I have already informed the House and the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) that the right hon. Gentleman is in Order. The question of Order has no foundation.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, that hon. Members on those Benches felt very strongly on the subject-matter of this Bill. He objected to the second reading being taken at that hour, and therefore begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
hoped the hon. Member for Galway would withdraw his Motion, otherwise there was no chance of the measure being passed that Session. It would be a great pity if the Bill were not read a second time that night.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
regretted that the second reading should have been moved at so late an hour; but he trusted that hon. Members interested in the question would consider that if the Bill was to become law that Session, it was very desirable that nothing should be 2000 allowed to stand in the way of the present stage being taken. There was no Notice of opposition to the Bill upon the Paper, and he did not suppose that any objection would be taken. He earnestly desired that all those who were concerned and interested in the question would consent to the second reading being taken; and he would do his best to take the next stage of the Bill at an earlier time. Under the circamstances, he trusted the hon. Member for Galway would not persevere with his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, he did not think it unreasonable, having regard to the time of the Session, that the Bill should be read a second time; and he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would, on the next occasion, do all he could to bring it on earlier in the evening. He had some remarks to make when the next stage was reached on the expense of the Examiners and the unlimited number and indefinite amount of the prizes, to which he would not now refer in detail.

§ MR. DAWSON
thought it would be a great calamity for the Irish people if the Bill were read a second time at that hour without a protest. The Bill provided no education for the Irish people. It was a misnomer to describe the system as one of education. The examination paper had no other result than to bring about the same state of things in the higher branches of education as was disclosed the other day by the noble Lord on that side of the House (Lord George Hamilton) in the case of Mr. Goffin—namely, a system of cramming for the purpose of getting grants. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had thought it right to take the second reading without giving Irish Members an opportunity for making a plea that the Irish people should be treated fairly in the matter of education. He thought they ought not, as it were, silently to sell their birthright in this matter for £20,000 a-year; and, although he was not at that moment prepared to discuss the Bill, he trusted that some further protest would be made that Irish Members had been driven, at an inopportune time of the morning, to give it a second reading.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL
agreed, to a certain extent, with the objections 2001 made by hon. Members opposite. He could not regard the proposed scheme as by any means satisfactory, nor did he think it reasonable to take the second reading stage without some opportunity of discussing the principles of the Bill. Nevertheless, he put it to hon. Members, that if it was not taken then there was no chance of the Bill passing that Session. He thought it would be better to make the Bill, with all its disadvantages, into law than to postpone it until next year.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he rose to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. He had worked hard and long in the cause of reform of Irish University Education; but, so far as he could make out the present Bill, it was for the abolition of University Education in Ireland. It did not even provide a good examination, paper—the machinery was bad even for that purpose—and he could say that the men who had the interest of education in Ireland at heart despised the Bill. Irish Members should, at least, have an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it; but those exponents of the national feeling upon the subject of Irish University Education had been kept entirely in the dark with regard to the Bill. There was a great public interest taken in this matter; and, having formerly objected to the inferior character of the education in the Queen's University, he should be false to his principles if he allowed to pass without protest a measure which would make men look back with regret to the Standard at that University. He trusted, therefore, an opportunity of discussing the second reading would be given. It was quite impossible to allow that stage to be taken on the present occasion without a sincere protest on the part of Irish Members.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
reminded the House that the Prime Minister had promised the House, when he asked for the whole of the time of the House, that no controversial matter should be brought forward during the remainder of the Session. Every English Bill had been set aside for the Irish Land Bill; and he would like to know upon what grounds the promise given was to be departed from? It was very clear, from what ton. Gentlemen opposite had said, that this Bill would, at some stage, provoke 2002 a lengthy discussion; and therefore he would like to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland to explain upon what grounds the pledge given to the House was being violated?

§ MR. GIVAN
quite thought this Bill was not sufficiently comprehensive for the requirements of education in Ireland; but, at the same time, he knew that a great amount of interest was concentrated upon the Bill by both Catholic and Protestant clergy. Their arrangements were made in view of the Bill being carried, and he thought it would be a great calamity if the intention to pass the Bill was frustrated. He hoped the second reading would be given to the Bill.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY
thought the Bill which was now being attacked was a very small matter; and that if hon. Members had wished to prevent the Bill, they should have endeavoured to repeal the Act passed two or three years ago. The present Bill was only intended to give greater effect to the Bill already passed.

§ DR. LYONS
hoped his hon. Friends would agree to the second reading. The Bill had been a long time under consideration, and it must be borne in mind that some years ago the present Government made an effort to settle this University Question, and he always regretted that the Bill introduced by the present Prime Minister had not become law. After careful consideration of the subject, he thought no such measure, in all probability, would be possible at any juncture of political circumstances in the near future. When a great opportunity, given in 1873, was lost, hopes were entertained that another and a greater measure would be introduced; but those hopes had been falsified, and the only possible measure that could be expected was that now introduced. A body of gentlemen, representing the education, and the religion, and the feelings of Ireland, had sat together for a long time, discussing the framework of a measure to be submitted to Parliament; and this Bill was only carrying out the essence of the Act of two years ago. The responsibility of the framework of the present measure did not rest with the Members of the Government; and he was prepared to say that if there was the smallest chance of a larger measure being considered, he would not accept this as the 2003 best settlement of the question. A vast deal of elaborate and scientific consideration had been devoted to this University scheme. It had been under the consideration of the House for some time, and all that the House was now asked to do was to give effect to the previous Act. Therefore, he hoped the House would consent to the formal second reading of the Bill. If this Bill was wrecked, thousands of expectant educationists in Ireland would be greatly disappointed.

§ MR. HEALY
complained of the action of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in this matter. The Speaker had said something which nobody could hear, and all that hon. Members were given to understand was that the second reading of this Bill was being moved. Except the Coercion Bill, he had not read a single Bill that Session; and it was a question whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when the second reading of this Bill was moved, ought not to say something in explanation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, however, had not done that, and had treated the House unfairly.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
observed, that no person could speak twice to a second reading, and therefore he had taken the course which he had adopted.

§ MR. HEALY
replied, that there were other right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who were fully aware of the circumstances of the case, and, therefore, the excuse of the right hon. Gentleman went by the board. To ask the House to discuss, at that hour, a Bill which they did not know anything about was unreasonable; and if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would allow the second reading to stand over to a reasonable time, the Irish Members would undertake not to oppose the second reading.

§ MR. GRAY
sympathized with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) as to the importance of a Bill of this kind being introduced earlier in the Session. He had no particular admiration for the scheme; but the existing Bill having been passed, it was desirable to pass this Bill also. When the Bill was blocked, there was a feeling of alarm amongst many hundreds of people in Ireland; and if it was now stopped, it might be stopped altogether, and that would create a feeling approaching to consternation in Ireland. The Govern- 2004 ment, which had already burnt its fingers with the University Bill, could not be expected to decide the question; and, considering that there would be abundant opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill on the Committee stage, he thought it would not be desirable to persevere in opposition to the Bill.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
wished to explain the course he intended to take. He felt very strongly with regard to the character of this Bill, and took great interest in University questions generally. He did not wish to sacrifice his chance of doing what he thought necessary in this case; but, as he had been appealed to by so many people, and did not wish to be ill-natured, he would withdraw his opposition. At the same time, he would suggest that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should, before the Committee stage, consider how he could bring the Bill on at an earlier hour.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
promised to do his best in that direction, for he desired that there should a good discussion on the Bill.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he did not wish to detain the House. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gray) had said that the House ought to consider the expectant educationists in Ireland. He (Mr. Labouchere) was an expectant vacationist, and he was anxious that the House should adjourn as soon as possible. He had understood that no impediment would be placed in the way of that adjournment by the introduction of controversial matter, and he did not understand how the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could enter into an agreement to afford time for discussing the measure.

THE MARQUESS or HARTINGTON
said, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had misunderstood the assurance given by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had only pledged himself that Bills of a public controversial character should not be taken. If any hon. Member was prepared to oppose this Bill, of course it could not be passed, and the responsibility would fall upon those who opposed it.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
wished to point out that there was really no controversy with regard to the Bill, and that it received the support of a large number of Irish Members. The only point was whether the Bill was large enough to 2005 deal with the general question of University Education; but there was no dispute as to the necessity of passing the measure in the present Session. A great deal of harm had been done in Ireland through not having a proper system of University Education, and it was quite time that something should be done to remedy the evil. He sincerely hoped that no attempt would be made to delay the progress of the present Bill.

§ MR. BRYCE
said, he did not intend to discuss the merits of the Bill at any length; but he thought the second reading ought not to be allowed to pass altogether in silence. He was of opinion that the Bill was not properly understood by the House. It was not correct, as had been stated by two of his hon. Friends near him that the measure was intended merely to carry out the Act of 1879. When the Bill of 1879 was introduced, it was subjected to a considerable amount of criticism, and the reply was that it was only a sketch giving the outline of a scheme, which outline was to be subsequently filled in by the Senate. The Senate were directed to prepare a scheme, and that scheme had now been prepared, and laid before Parliament, and the present Bill was brought in to give effect to it. Objection was taken to the scheme prepared by the Senate, on the ground that it was worse than the one shadowed forth by the Act of 1879. It would have been quite possible to have a much better scheme under that Act, and he sympathized with what had been said by his non. Friend opposite (Mr. Dawson), that the Bill now under discussion was one which would do no good to the cause of education in Ireland. At that late hour (half-past 2) he would not ask the House to listen to any discussion on the merits of the Bill itself; but the Irish Members who took an interest in education, naturally protested against a scheme which they believed would satisfy nobody, which would not benefit Irish Education in any perceptible degree, and which would only form a basis for future agitation.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the object of the Bill was to provide an endowment for carrying out the purposes of the Act of 1879. He had no wish to go back upon the discussion which occurred in 1879; but he thought that the Bill which was then passed did, to 2006 a certain extent, make provision for a great want in Ireland. A great number of the Irish people were not satisfied with the Universities then in existence. He held now, as he held then, that it would have been far better to meet the want in a far more comprehensive manner; but, although that was his opinion, it was not the opinion which the House adopted. A measure was, however, passed, and the object of the present Bill was to enable that measure to be put into practical operation. He thought it would be a great disappointment to a large portion of the Irish people if Parliament refused now to try the experiment of establishing this new University. Not only would it be a great disappointment to a good many people, but it would be a great calamity to the cause of higher education; because it would be depriving the young men who hoped to take advantage of it of the means already provided, without putting anything in their place. He therefore thought that those who were interested in Irish Education were bound to support the present Bill in order to carry out the Act of 1879; and if, at some future time, it was found that that Act was not the best mode of carrying out University Education, an attempt might be made to improve it. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) said the Bill would satisfy nobody, and would not benefit Irish Education. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) must remind his hon. Friend that, after all, the scheme proposed by the Senate was the result of the labours of a large representive body of Irishmen, and, probably, the best representative body that could be found. His hon. Friend might possibly be right in his views; but, at any rate, he stood alone in those views, and, not being himself an Irish Member, his opinions were contrary to those which had been declared by a considerable number of persons who had carefully inquired into the subject. The mode in which the scheme had been prepared was this. The Senate were instructed to prepare it, and, having prepared it, it had been submitted to this Government and laid on the Table of the House. But the scheme was not binding. It merely contained such information as the Senate desired to lay before Parliament; and what would really be binding would be the statutes and regulations 2007 made under the Act of 1879, and those statutes and regulations would have to be approved of by the Government, and laid upon the Table of the House. The Senate would act with the full knowledge that their recommendations would have to be approved by Parliament; and what the House had now to consider was whether any good object was to be gained by putting the matter off for another year. He would really submit to his hon. Friend whether he was so fully confident in his own views as to what Irish Education should be that he was prepared to subject the Irish people to the great inconvenience which the loss of what they were now striving for would entail? In regard to the future discussion of the Bill, he would do his best to secure the measure being brought on at as early an hour as possible. It had already passed through the other House of Parliament. He was sorry to say that, owing to the pressure of other Public Business, there was not much chance of bringing the Bill on at a very early hour; but, in order not to disappoint those who were interested in the question, he would try to induce hon. Members to submit to the inconvenience of discussing it at a late hour. Personally, he should very much prefer a full discussion, because he thought it was desirable that the public should know all that might be stated in regard to the provisions of the Bill.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had scarcely treated the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), fairly. The right hon. Gentleman told the hon. Member that he was not an Irish Member, and therefore that he was scarcely competent to discuss a question affecting Irish Education. But the hon. Member, if not an Irish Member, was an Irishman, and was therefore fully competent to take part in the discussion of an Irish question. The present Bill simply made provision for the appropriation of an Irish fund for University Education in Ireland, and by that provision it would save the Imperial Exchequer a certain amount of money now given to the Queen's University, which University, when the Royal University was started, would cease to exist. Therefore, it was at the expense of an Irish fund that the new University 2008 was to be established. Personally, he looked upon the sum of £20,000 a-year proposed to be applied to the new University as a very inadequate sum. The Senate, when it drew up the scheme, framed it in a manner that was liberal and reasonable; but the Treasury refused to assent to it, because they considered that it would involve a larger expenditure than they were willing to agree to. The consequence was that the new Royal University was cut down to proportions which, he was afraid, would make it a deplorable failure. That, however, was a question which could be raised just as readily when the Bill got into Committee as upon the second reading. He should be sorry to do anything that could interfere with the second reading of the Bill; but he certainly could not understand why, seeing that it was a Bill of only one clause, the right hon. Gentleman could not have deferred it until a later date, when a full discussion could have been taken on it, and the necessity of discussing it in Committee obviated.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he was glad to hear the assurance which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the scheme which had been drawn up by the Senate was a scheme still open to amendment. He thought it was quite capable of amendment. He quite agreed with the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Lyons), who stated that although the Act of 1879 did not provide for a good University, still, at any rate, it provided a better University than existed at present. He deprecated the limited nature of the provision made by the Act of 1879. The measure did not appear to provide sufficient backbone for the persons who undertook the carrying out of the important business dealt with by the Act. There seemed to him to be too much of the jelly fish in the system, and he was afraid that the new University would totally fail to content the Irish people. At the same time, if there were any further delay in carrying out some scheme or other, great mischief might be done to the cause of education in Ireland.