SECOND READING.

HC Deb 04 December 1884 vol 294 cc747-67

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he did not intend to detain the House any undue length of time in moving the second reading of this Bill. He regretted very much that, in consequence of the condition of the Business of the House, it had become necessary that the introduction of a Bill of such importance as this should take place at so late an hour. His excuse, however, was to be found in the importance justly attached to the measure by the people of Ireland. The case of the Irish National School teachers had been brought again and again, in successive years, under the notice of the House of Commons, and on no single occasion had any serious or solid objection been offered to a remedy of the existing grievances such as was proposed in the present Bill. Notwithstanding, however, that these grievances were exposed year after year, and that there had been no serious objection to the application of a remedy, nothing had ever come of the efforts of the Irish Members to obtain that remedy. The Government had made promises time after time, but on no occasion had they ever made any serious effort to redeem those promises; and it, therefore, seemed the duty of the Irish Members, having all but carried a Resolution, last Session, declaratory of the principle of the scheme contained in the present Bill, to bring forward a measure themselves this Session, and lay it before the notice of the House of Commons, and give the Government the opportunity either of supporting it or of adducing their reasons for adopting an opposite course. The grievances the Irish National School teachers had long complained of were three in number—first, insufficiency of pay; secondly, the condition of the residences provided for them; and, thirdly, inadequacy of the pensions and retiring allowances granted to them. The Bill, which was a very short measure, proposed to deal with every one of these three questions. It proposed to supply deficiencies in two Acts passed in 1875—one to improve the position of the teachers in regard to salaries, and the other to alleviate their condition in regard to their residences. These measures—like a great many other measures of relief for Ireland—were faulty, entirely inadequate, and came too late. The Bill he now proposed for second reading amended in two or three important respects the terms of these former Bills. It proposed to raise the fees paid to the National School teachers. The Act of 1875 provided that any Poor Law Union in Ireland that was willing to do so might contribute a certain portion of the rates to be divided amongst the National teachers as result fees; and the Act also provided that if a Union did make such contribution, the Treasury might advance a small amount to them. It was left permissive to every Union to contribute or not, as it thought fit. The result was that although some Unions did contribute at first, the number rapidly fell away, until, at last, it became painfully evident that there was no practical value in the provision. The present Bill provided that result fees should be paid in each case, whether the Unions agreed to contribute or not, and that the teachers, who were a hardly worked and badly-paid class, should not be dependent on the caprice or at the mercy of this or that Union, but should have fair and decent salaries secured to them. The second portion of the Bill was simply to amend an Act which laid down conditions on which money should be advanced for the purpose of erecting houses for the teachers. It proposed to improve the conditions specified in the Act of 1875 by extending the period of payment and reducing the amount to be paid each year. The third part of the Bill placed the teachers in a better position in regard to pensions and retiring allowances. These were the points of the Bill. It would be wrong in him to detain the House at so late an hour in explaining at greater length all the interesting questions which naturally arose under this Bill. The House was already well acquainted with the grievances of National School teachers and the remedies the Irish Members wished to apply to their case. It was simply proposed to develop and improve the two Acts of 1875—to carry out the intention the House had in its mind when it passed them. The Irish Members asked Parliament to make a reality of what they had desired, but had failed to do, nearly 10 years ago, and to mete out a measure of justice to one of the most deserving and useful and ill-treated classes of public servants in Ireland, or any other country. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—{Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I can hardly believe that the hon. Member expects the House, I will not say to read this Bill a second time on the present occasion, but even to proceed seriously to discuss it. [Mr. SEXTON: Why not?] The Bill was only printed and placed in the hands of hon. Members this morning; and not only is that the fact, but the history of the measure is rather singular. The hon. Member gave Notice of it at an early period this Session. It was introduced and read a first time on an early day, and for some time lately it has been put down day after day on the Orders of the House—for what reason I do not exactly know—but the House having no indication of what the Bill really was intended to be, it was put down day after day on the Orders of the House. It is, therefore, pretty clear that the hon. Member himself did not know what the Bill was going to be until a recent date—probably not until a day or two ago. [An hon. MEMBER: Long ago.] If the hon. Member has taken so long to make up his mind as to what his own Bill was going to be, it is only fair that the House should be allowed a little time to make up its mind as to what opinion it should form of it. It is a Bill of a very serious kind, largely interfering with the emoluments of teachers in Ireland. I am not going to express an opinion either for or against it; but it is a measure on which the Irish Government could not take any step without first consulting the Treasury, the Board of National Education in Ireland, and other authorities, so that it is quite impossible for us to express an opinion now. Under all the circumstances, and considering that the Bill is perfectly new to the House, and that it affects a very large question which cannot be dealt with in an off-hand way, I think that I best discharge my duty by moving at once that the debate be adjourned. I am not sure that a technical objection could not be taken to the Bill, on the ground that it largely affects many questions, and ought to have been brought in in Committee of the Whole House. I do not raise that objection myself; and I think that, under the circumstances, the best course for me to take on the part of the Government is to move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)

MR. SEXTON

said, he regretted the course which had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and even more than the regret he felt at the Motion the right hon. Gentleman had made was the regret he was obliged to feel and to express at the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's observations. It was true the right hon. Gentleman had refrained from the crowning step of making the technical objection he had referred to; but whilst he had refrained from taking that course himself, he had indicated pretty clearly to every other enemy of the Bill that they might defeat it and prevent its progress by doing that which he himself would not do. Looking at the manner in which the Cabinet was now engaged in forwarding legislation on a question far greater and more important than that dealt with in the present Bill, he (Mr. Sexton) was bound to say that the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman against proceeding with the Bill struck him as being exceedingly singular. The right hon. Gentleman said there had been delay in printing the Bill, and that it had been put down in the Orders from day to day. Well, the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), who was in charge of the Bill, felt it convenient and necessary to negotiate with those outside the House; and it was strange that a Member of a Government which had been quite recently engaged in private negotiations outside on a much more important matter should object to such a course on the part of the hon. Member.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I made no such objection.

MR. SEXTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think the fact that the Bill had not been printed earlier—which was owing to these negotiations—was a reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with at present. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the hon. Member for Longford himself was not aware of the contents of his own Bill until a late period, and that he now desired the House to proceed with it suddenly. Well, how long ago was the House of Commons aware of the intentions of the Government with regard to the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill? They had been engaged in private negotiations for the past fortnight; they had sprung this Bill on the House of Commons a couple of days ago, and they had rushed it through a second reading that night. It was in presence of the fact, well known to everybody, that the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill, which had been rushed through the House that night, had sprung out of a private negotiation carried on outside the House, that the hon. Member for Longford was reproached with delay in putting down the terms of his Bill. His delay was urged as a reason for not proceeding with the Bill. A measure of the magnitude of the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill, could be proceeded with under such circum stances, but not a simple measure for the relief of the Irish National teachers. The hon. Member for Longford had, of course, put down the Bill from day to day, in the hope of being able to avail himself of such opportunities as might arise for bringing it on. There had been several occasions on which the House had disposed of its Business early, and on one of those the hon. Member had hoped, when his Bill was ready, to bring on the second reading. Such an opportunity had arisen that night. The propositions in the Bill were simple and just, though they were long. They were only long because long propositions were necessary to satisfy the justice of the case. The House, if it desired to do justice to a deserving body of public servants, ought to proceed with the measure without hesitation. The Irish Members asked, first, that the salaries of the National School teachers should be modified. He did not know whether he was in Order in referring to——

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are now on the Question of the Adjournment.

MR. SEXTON

said, he had apprehended that he was slightly out of Order from a significant and eloquent movement on the part of Mr. Speaker. Judging from the precipitancy with which the Government had forced a measure of great importance on the House, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in the course he had adopted that night had behaved with great inconsistency and with great want of conciliation towards a long-suffering body of public servants in Ireland. He (Mr. Sexton) hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not insist on his Motion for Adjournment. The Irish Members would oppose it, but they would not be able to resist it for any length of time. Under any circumstances, he hoped the Government would give the Irish Members a promise that they would not on its future stages oppose the progress of the Bill.

MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHY

said, it seemed to him singularly unreasonable on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to move the adjournment of the debate that evening on the ground that he had not been able to find time to master the exceedingly simple details of this measure. The whole subject of the National School teachers of Ireland had been before the House for a very long time indeed—for something like 10 years—and the details of their grievances, and the manner in which it was proposed to remedy them, ought to be familiar even to the freshest of Chief Secretaries. If the right hon. Gentleman was not familiar with them, it would, of course, be the duty of the Irish Party to make him familiar with them during his tenure of Office, if that tenure were sufficiently long to enable them to do so. He (Mr. M'Carthy) had had the honour, two or three months ago, of bringing this subject of the National School teachers of Ireland under the notice of the House, and had only been unsuccessful in carrying his Motion by a very small number of votes. He had hoped that the warning then conveyed to the Irish Executive would have induced them to bring forward some measure of their own dealing with the difficulties of the Irish School teachers. But as the Government did not think it right to take any steps in the matter, it was left to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and those who followed him to have the case again brought before the House. The arguments the Irish Members might have used in support of the Bill, if the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had not silenced them, would have been more or less a repetition of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman might have made himself familiar with if he had studied the previous debate. He (Mr. M'Carthy) was aware they could not now go into the details of the measure before them, but they could protest with all the vigour at their command against the course the Government had taken of gagging them on this occasion. The Government were accustomed to gag the Irish Members whenever they could. They would hardly feel at home if they were not trying to do so. This was the first occasion on which the present Chief Secretary had been able to do so, and, very naturally, he seized his opportunity. He (Mr. M'Carthy) protested against the course pursued on behalf of the Irish National teachers, whose cause he had represented before now; and he also protested in the strongest manner against the tone assumed by the Chief Secretary.

MR. KENNY

said, he would remind the House that at the closing period of last Session a Resolution on this question was discussed at considerable length, and was tested by a Division. The result was that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) was only rejected by a majority of two. The question was at that time fully discussed, and the objections made by the Government were objections as to political exigency. As well as he could remember they were not objections advanced on principle. He desired to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that when, a year ago, his Predecessor (Mr. Trevelyan) had in charge a Bill, of a nature analogous to the present, to increase the pay and pensions not of teachers, but of Irish policemen, the Bill was passed through the House with the utmost expedition. The Rule of Urgency was not voted for it, but the Government took every opportunity in their power to press it forward. Even at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning the clauses—the different Amendments—were discussed in Committee, and the Chief Secretary at the time turned a deaf ear to all the requests made to him by the Irish Members to give them time for the purpose of considering their action with regard to the Bill. He would suggest to the Chief Secretary that the measure had been amply discussed. The justice of the claims of the Irish National School teachers had been over and over again admitted by the officials of the Government on the Trea- sury Bench—even by the officials of the present Government. The Bill was an extremely simple one and although it had been before the House but for a short time, nevertheless the time was sufficiently long for every Member of the House who cared to instruct himself upon the subject to become thoroughly master of the details of the measure. In view of these considerations, he would appeal to the Government to take the course they had taken in regard to a still more important measure, and agree to the second reading of the Bill, in order that they might give to the National teachers of Ireland an assurance that the Government were serious in their intention of legislating. If the Government would read the Bill a second time now, the Irish Members would consent to take a discussion upon its principle upon a later stage on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair, and they would be ready to put down the date of that stage for some day not before the 19th of February, the date which had been fixed for going into Committee on the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill. Under any circumstances, he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would give some assurance to so deserving a body of men and women as the Irish National teachers, that there was a bonâ fide intention on their part to make some provision for their future treatment and training.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he must express a considerable amount of surprise that the forcible appeal which had been made by the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had not elicited any response from the Government. He saw the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland in his place, and he ventured to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman knew a great deal more about this than almost any other Irish question. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought, therefore, to be in a position to answer the hon. Member for Ennis, if he were willing to do so, and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would support the proposal put forward by his hon. Friend—that the Government should allow the second reading of the Bill, with the understanding that the discussion would be taken on the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair. He was sure that his hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill would be perfectly willing to put down the further stages of it for any reasonable date, say, the last week in February or the first week in March. He put this forward only as a suggestion, and not for the purpose of raising a discussion. He joined in the regret which had been expressed at the manner in which the Chief Secretary had dealt with the question. There was certainly no reason for moving the adjournment of the debate at the moment that course was taken by the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman had put forward his views to the Irish Members that this was not a proper time for discussing the question, they would have been quite willing to give fair consideration to any of the arguments he might have adduced in support of those views; but the right hon. Gentleman had preferred to take the course of endeavouring to apply to them an effectual gag, by moving the adjournment of the debate, before any real discussion of the question could take place, and at the very first moment that it was possible for him to do so. That course had been aggravated by the arguments the right hon. Gentleman had brought to bear in favour of an adjournment. One reason assigned was that his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had put the Bill down on the Paper from day to day. Was there anything absurd, unusual, or reprehensible in an hon. Member putting down a Bill from day to day in such a ricketty and dissevered kind of Session as they had at the present moment? Nobody knew what was going to be done. They were in the midst of a great Party struggle, and the House might rise at 7 o'clock in the evening or sit until 3 o'clock in the morning. Under circumstances of this kind, his hon. Friend would have been grossly neglecting the important interests intrusted to his charge if he had not put down the Bill from day to day, in the hope that some occasion might arise when he would be able to bring it forward. What was the second reason of the right hon. Gentleman? It was certainly one upon which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have endeavoured to illuminate his mind before he put it forward. The Chief Secretary said that his hon. Friend did not know what was in his own mind when he gave Notice of the Bill. Now, that was not so. His hon. Friend was fully aware of the proposals he intended to make, but he had some doubt as to the particular drafting that was necessary in order to put those proposals in a proper shape in the Bill. Several technical objections stood in the way of his hon. Friend; but his hon. Friend, from the moment he gave Notice of the Bill, always entertained exactly the same views in regard to the provisions required as those embodied in the Bill. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know that this measure was only the embodiment, in the shape of a Bill, of the proposals of his hon. Friend the Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) in a Resolution he had moved in the House. The Government were familiar with all the proposals contained in the Bill. They had been brought before them time after time, Session after Session, in Resolution after Resolution, and speech after speech, until he thought it would have been a far more reasonable complaint on the part of the right hon. Gentleman if he had said that he was sick and tired of hearing of the subject, rather than that he was unfamiliar with the proposals contained in the Bill. Under these circumstances, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the unreasonable opposition he had made to the second reading of the Bill, on a distinct pledge being given that it would not be carried to a further stage until the close of February, and that ample time would be afforded for a full discussion.

DR. LYONS

deprecated the Motion for the adjournment of the debate on this important measure, which concerned very large interests in Ireland. He would remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman, if they were not already aware of the history of the measure, that it had formed to a large extent the subject-matter of a Bill which ought to be familiar to the House. When that Bill was passed it was passed on the distinct understanding that there should be a contribution on the part of the Unions. That part of the Bill had not been carried out, and it was necessary that the provisions should be reshaped. He believed he was perfectly justified in making that statement. In point of fact, the Bill, in a certain sense, was a secondary Bill.

MR. SPEAKER

The Question before the House is the Question of Adjourn- ment. The hon. Member is not entitled to go into the principle of the Bill, or of any amendment of it.

DR. LYONS

said, he had only been trying to recall to the mind of the Chief Secretary that the engagement made some time ago by a former Chief Secretary for Ireland was that the measure should be reconsidered if it was found necessary. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would now, by withdrawing his Motion, permit some discussion on the principles of the measure to take place, and some statement to be made of the circumstances which had already taken place in regard to this Bill. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a Division, because it would have the effect of hanging up the consideration of the question until an indefinite period. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be most ill-advised in taking that course. The Bill had now obtained a certain position, is which it was possible to make some advance; and in all probability if the Motion for Adjournment were pressed, on the part of the Government, the Bill would be killed, notwithstanding the fact that it was regarded as a necessity in the interests of a large class of the Irish people.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, he did not think that, in refusing to allow this Bill to be read a second time that night, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary calculated at all accurately the degree of disappointment which would be created in Ireland by the course which he was adopting. The Bill which the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had introduced was one which had for a very longtime attracted considerable interest in Ireland. It was a measure the provisions of which had long been felt to be a necessity; and he was perfectly sure that to-morrow morning, when the news reached Ireland that upon that night, which was practically the last night of the Session of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had refused to grant the second reading of the Bill, there would be nothing from one end of Ireland to the other but deep disappointment and dissatisfaction. Upon what grounds did the right hon. Gentleman refuse to allow the Bill to be read a second time? He believed the right hon. Gentleman had no fault to find with the principle of the Bill. At least, he (Mr. Redmond) was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman had given expression to any dissatisfaction or opposition to the principle which was contained in the Bill. He had not denied that the position of the National School teachers in Ireland required material improvement; and as far as they upon those Benches could understand, it was practically, although silently, perhaps, admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill was a necessary Bill, and that it was a measure which would meet with the approval and support of the Government at some future date. Why, then, did the right hon. Gentleman refuse, by not allowing it to be read a second time, to give to the people of Ireland the satisfaction of knowing that Her Majesty's Government did approve of the principle of the Bill? If the second reading necessitated the adoption by the Government of the provisions of the Bill, pure and simple, as they were presented within the four corners of it, there might, perhaps, be some ground for the right hon. Gentleman's objection that the measure had been but recently printed, and that sufficient time had not been afforded to the Government for fully mastering the details of the measure. It ought to be considered that the second reading was by no means a pledge that the Bill would be passed. The second reading was merely an expression of approval of the general propositions contained in the Bill; and it would be quite competent for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant and his Colleagues in Her Majesty's Government to oppose any portions of the Bill which they did not think desirable, at a further stage of the measure—in Committee. It would be quite competent for anyone between the present time and the day on which the House would be asked to go into Committee upon the Bill, to master any detail which any hon. Member might now complain that he had not had time to enable him fully to master. He did not think that the position of the right hon. Gentleman was consistent. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that he disapproved of the Bill. He did not say that it was a Bill which Her Majesty's Government would not be able to sanction; and yet, although he tacitly gave his approval to the principle of the measure, he would not allow that approval to take the form of consenting to the Bill being read a second time, so that it might give satisfaction to the people of Ireland. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the situation. By allowing the Bill to be read a second time, what would he do? He would do an act which would give very great satisfaction to the people of Ireland, whom he would have to govern between this time and the time when Parliament would reassemble. By allowing the Bill to be read a second time, he did not pledge himself, nor did he pledge Her Majesty's Government, to pass the Bill in its entirety. By allowing it to be read a second time, he and the Government would be doing an act which would be graciously received throughout Ireland, and which would be fully appreciated by the Representatives of Ireland sitting upon those Benches. Upon the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman, by refusing to allow the Bill to be read a second time, would give rise to an impression throughout Ireland, which might perhaps be erroneous, that Her Majesty's Government were opposed to the Bill. As surely as the right hon. Gentleman pressed his Motion for Adjournment—as surely as he did not allow the Bill to be read a second time—the National School teachers of Ireland and their friends would construe the action of the right hon. Gentleman, in thus opposing the measure, into an expression by Her Majesty's Government of opposition to the general provisions of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought he was justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position. It was not very much that they asked the right hon. Gentleman to do, and he was sure that if he acceded to their request, it would be altogether for the benefit of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland. It would render all the more secure the position of the right hon. Gentleman himself as Chief Secretary for Ireland, and satisfaction would be given to a very large and influential class of the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman's plea for and justification of his refusal to allow the Bill to be read a second time, was that it had only recently been printed, and that, consequently, he and other Members of Parliament had not had sufficient time to master its contents. That was a plea which he had certainly not expected to hear from the lips of any Gentleman in that House, much less from a Member of Her Majesty's Government. What was the nature of this Bill which required such a great deal of study in order to master its provisions?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the Bill.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, he was only about to point out why he thought it would be desirable that the Bill should be read a second time, in opposition to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the debate should be adjourned. The Bill against which the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman was directed was a measure containing six clauses only. He did not know the average mental capacity of hon. Members of that House, and he did not know what amount of time the right hon. Gentleman required to enable him to master six clauses of a Bill.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is exceeding the fair latitude given to an hon. Member in discussing a Motion for Adjournment. I must call upon him to confine his remarks to the Mosion before the House, which is strictly the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, he was sorry that the Rules of the House would not allow him to explain why it was that he was opposed to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. What were the facts of the case? A Motion for the adjournment of the debate had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, and that Motion, if adopted, would practically kill a most necessary and a most useful measure which had been introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) for the benefit of the National School teachers of Ireland. Of course, according to the ruling of the Chair, he (Mr. Redmond) was not allowed to show why he considered that ample time had been given to every Member of the House, of average intellect, to master the details of the Bill, and to approve of its second reading, as against the Motion for Adjournment. Therefore, he would confine himself strictly to discussing, for a few moments longer, the Motion which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had made. Upon very many occasions when it had been the duty of Members sitting on the Irish Benches to move the adjournment of the debate, or of the House, they had received a very great deal of opposition from Her Majesty's Government. Whenever they had, in accordance with the duty which they considered to be consistent with their position as Representatives of the people of Ireland, moved the adjournment of the debate, or the adjournment of the House, they had constantly called down upon their heads the indignation and disapproval of Her Majesty's Government; but now, when it suited Her Majesty's Government——

MR. SPEAKER

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I have twice told him that his remarks are irrelevant, and that he is exceeding all reasonable latitude. I must ask him, therefore, to resume his seat.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

remained standing.

MR. SPEAKER

I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

I was about——

MR. SPEAKER

I ask the hon. Gentleman once more to resume his seat.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND,

thereupon, resumed his seat.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, he was in hope that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland might, to some extent, have been softened by the entreaties made from the Irish Benches and from the Benches behind the right hon. Gentleman, and that he might not have pressed his Motion for Adjournment in the teeth of what was plainly the opinion of the Representatives of Ireland. He (Mr. O'Brien) and his hon. Friends could not help noticing, and he did not think that the Irish teachers would fail to notice, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was in such a hurry to give an ungracious reception to a Bill of so much importance to a large class of public servants in Ireland, that he actually jumped up to make the proposal for adjournment before the Motion for the second reading of the Bill was seconded. The right hon. Gentleman had made no objection to the Bill itself; but the Motion he had made would simply have the effect of killing the Bill for this Session; and the only ground on which it was made was that this short Bill of a few clauses was only put into the hands of Members that morning. If he was not mistaken, it was only that morning that Members received the amended draft of the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill, which had been read a second time that night. They excused a good deal of the right hon. Gentleman's inexperience of Irish affairs; but he should, have supposed that even one whose acquaintance with Ireland was of so very recent date would have known that this Bill was not in any respect sprung upon the House of Commons. Years ago, the House adopted the principle of the Bill, and the Bill that his hon. Friend (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) wished to have read a second time simply provided the machinery for carrying out what was already the expressed will of the House. He could not possibly understand that the almost technical excuse that this short Bill was only delivered that day should be allowed to stand in the way of the House entertaining this Session the claims of a hard-worked body of public servants, whose grievances—and they were many—had over and over again been acknowledged. He could not help contrasting the slowness with which the Chief Secretary for Ireland made, that night, the attempt to do justice to the School teachers of Ireland with the speed, the extraordinary speed, with which the claims of the Royal Irish Constabulary were entertained by the House.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not now confining himself to the Question of Adjournment. He is going into matters which are quite irrelevant to the Question before the House.

MR. O'BRIEN

asked if he was not at liberty to represent to the Chief Secretary and to the House that the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take now in the case of the claims of an important body of public servants was not similar to the course that was taken by the Government when the claims of another body of public servants had to be discussed?

MR. SPEAKER

No; that is quite irrelevant to the subject before the House, which is the adjournment of the debate.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, it might, possibly, be one of the misfortunes of their case; but he must say it was rather difficult for an Irish Member to find anything to say that was relevant to questions, when Irish intervention in debate was disagreeable to the majority of the House.

MR. LEAMY

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be courteous enough to reply to the arguments which Irish Members had advanced in favour of this Bill. Of course, he (Mr. Leamy) and his hon. Friends were only very small in number; but that was no reason why the arguments they had put forward against the Amendment which had been moved by the right hon. Gentleman should not, at least, be replied to by someone on the Treasury Bench. The awkward position in which they would be placed by the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was that the discussion of the Bill would practically be prevented for the remainder of the Session. If this Bill had been an English Bill, it would have been mastered in five minutes. It had been suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should allow the Bill to be read a second time, now and inquire into its merits during the Recess, and before the Committee stage could possibly be taken. The right hon. Gentleman could command big battalions, and as he could defer the subsequent stage of the Bill until such time as he wished, and as he must know that he could read the Bill a second time without committing himself to the principle of the Bill or without tying his bands to pass the measure, he (Mr. Leamy) failed to understand why it was that the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his present Amendment. The right hon. Gentles man was new to his position; he was new to the propositions of Irish Members; but when the Motion was made to read this Bill a second time, he certainly had no right to meet it in the way he did. Were the Irish Members to go back to Ireland at the end of this Autumn Sitting and tell the people that when they brought forward a Bill of this character, which was not a controversial Bill, but one for the amelioration of the condition of a deserving body of public servants, it was not allowed to be discussed? He thought they had a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), upon whom, at present, the Leadership of the House de- volved, to be courteous enough to rise in his place and tell them why they should adjourn the debate. It was only asked that the Bill should be read a second time now. If that were done, there could not possibly be any further discussion until they met again in February. If the right hon. Gentleman withdrew his Motion and allowed the Bill to be read a second time, it would always be in the power of the Government to say whether the discussion should be resumed or not; it would be in their power to say whether there should be any chance of the promoters of the Bill moving that the Speaker should leave the Chair. Seeing that the chances of resuming the discussion were so very remote if the Government did not desire that the consideration of the measure should be resumed, he did not see what the Government could lose by allowing the second reading to be taken that night. He put it to the House whether the claim put forward by the Irish Members was not a most reasonable one, especially as they could not by any possibility force the Government to take any future stage of the measure?

MR. WARTON

said, he was in favour of the Motion for Adjournment, because there was not time that night to go into the question properly and fully. He ventured to suggest, however, that the Government would save themselves a great deal of trouble if they now assented to the second reading.

MR. P. J. POWER

said, that the Representatives of Ireland were often told that the Government were very anxious to deal with Irish affairs on the same footing as they dealt with English affairs. He did not think the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that night would, in the opinion of the Irish people, justify that assertion. This Bill was a very simple one. It was merely a Bill to put the teachers of Ireland——

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not in Order in discussing the principles of the Bill.

MR. P. J. POWER

said, he was sorry to say that the action which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had taken that night would encourage the opinion, now so largely prevalent in Ireland, that the people could not get anything from Her Majesty's Government unless they resorted to pressure. It was very possible that the action of the Government that night would force the National School teachers of Ireland, if they wished to have their grievances redressed, to adopt something like the tactics adopted recently by the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, that, before the Motion was put to the vote, he should like to know whether anybody on the Treasury Bench meant to justify the Motion for Adjournment by offering any suggestion, or making any proposition, or giving any indication that anything whatever would be done by the Government? He hoped the Government would say something which might excuse or vindicate the extraordinary course they proposed, or that they would offer a promise to do something which would enable them to bring the question before the House at the proper time. The Bill was only 33 lines in length, and yet the Government had said nothing whatever in the way of pledge or promise, or in vindication or excuse of their conduct.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, that to the appeal made in the terms used by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) he had no hesitation in responding. Of course, in the remarks he had to make, he should confine himself strictly to the question whether the debate ought to be adjourned or not. So far as he knew, the matter was simply this. A Bill was introduced for the purpose of improving the salaries and pensions of the Irish School teachers. That Bill was introduced about six or seven weeks ago, and until that morning it was not printed, and nothing had been done to have it printed. No proposal for increasing the salaries of Irish teachers, or the salaries of any other public servants, could be made except by a Minister of the Crown. It was not in the power of Members, except by Motion set up by a Minister of the Crown, to make such a proposal. There was, however, a single clause in the Bill to which this did not apply, and, therefore, in point of form, it might come before the House; but when increase of salary was the real object of a Bill of which they only had Notice a few hours ago, a Bill which, in this respect, dealt with matters strictly within the power of a Minister of the Crown and no one else, was it or was it not reasonable that the Government or the Treasury should have time to consider the matters with which the Bill dealt? In this instance, they had not had such time, because the Bill had only been printed that morning. That seemed to be an unanswerable reason for adjourning the debate. He was the last person who would take his stand upon technicalities; and, therefore, setting aside all technicalities, he would undertake that the Government would consider this proposal—not as a Bill, because as a Bill it could not be introduced. They would consider the proposal between now and the reassembling of the House in February, and if, after due consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Irish Government, they thought that any proposal about School teachers salaries or pensious should be made to the House, they would, on their own responsibility, make it. He thought the course he suggested was a fair and reasonable one, and, therefore, he hoped the House would now agree to the adjournment of the debate.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 14: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 22.)

MR. SPEAKER

Bill deferred until what day?

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

This day.

MR. SEXTON

What day is fixed?

MR. SPEAKER

I asked the hon. Member (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), and I understood him to say "to-morrow."

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

I said "to-day."

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.