COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 27 July 1891)

§ (1.34.) MR. T. W. RUSSELL
I am reluctantly compelled to move to report Progress. A pledge was given by the First Lord of the Treasury that no contentious measures should be taken after a certain date, yet a measure full of contention is sought to be forced through the House at 2 o'clock in the morning, when no one will have a chance of seeing what passes. The English as well as the Irish people are interested in this Bill, which proposes to hand over a practically unlimited sum of money to Archbishop Walsh and the Roman Catholic Church for the purpose of endowing denominational training colleges. It is not fair, nor just, nor reasonable on the part of the Government to force a Bill of this character through the House at this period of the Session, and at this late hour of the night. If the Chief Secretary desires to pass it, let him put it down so that we may discuss it at a proper hour, when the taxpayers of the country may have a chance of knowing what is being done.

§ (1.37.) MR. SEXTON
I have never heard a more reckless and misleading statement than that made by the hon. Member, who has turned a most astounding somersault. On the Second Reading he said his opposition was only formal.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
I absolutely opposed the Second Reading, because the Chief Secretary gave no explanation of the Bill.

§ MR. SEXTON
The hon. Member said he only wanted an opportunity of making a speech and dividing against the Bill, but he had no desire to prevent its passing. Let me point out money has been already given to this fund by 516 Parliament. This is a mere tempest in a teacup. The Bill is simply an attempt on the part of the Chief Secretary to apply to Ireland the principles which exist with regard to denominational training colleges in England and Wales. I trust that reasonable men on all sides of the House will assist the Chief Secretary in disposing of a question which has caused great difficulty in Ireland.

(1.43.) COLONEL NOLAN
I think that as this Bill is supported by Irish Members on all sides of the House, it can hardly be called a contentious measure. It has been rendered necessary by the fact that a former Government tried to force on Ireland a system of training teachers which—

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! That is not relevant to the Motion for reporting Progress.

COLONEL NOLAN
Very well; I will only say I think the hon. Member for South Tyrone ought to be content with taking a Division, and should not then resist the further progress of the Bill.

§ (1.45.) COLONEL SAUNDERSON
I am opposed to this Bill, and I believe that the vast majority of Irish Protestants are opposed to it. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that this is a Bill in the direction of denominational education in Ireland, to which we are bitterly opposed. We also believe that the Bill will endow the training colleges of the Church of Rome with a very considerable sum of money out of the Irish Church Surplus Fund, and to that also we are bitterly opposed. I resist the Bill on the ground that it is an extremely contentious measure and one which ought to be carefully considered and debated before it is passed. It is impossible to do that at this late hour of the night, and I hope the Government will not press the Bill.

§ MR. A. SUTHERLAND
After what has happened in this House during the last few months, the hon. Member must have a lot of assurance to say he is opposed to denominational education, for he has been assisting the Government to pass a Denominational Bill through for England. Evidently he does not like to apply to Ireland the principle he is willing to apply to Scotland. As the hon. Member for West Bel- 517 fast has stated, the system of the denominational training of teachers obtains in England, Scotland, and Wales, and I do not see why its benefits should not be extended to the people of Ireland. I have always opposed the denominational training of teachers, but if it is allowed in England, it should also be allowed in Ireland.

§ (1.48.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
It is true that there is a system of denominational training college teaching in England, but it is not the system which I desire to see adopted in Ireland, whore I wish to see a more complete one. Two attacks have been made upon this Bill. One is connected with the conduct of public business. It is said that the Government are violating their pledge with regard to contentious business. But the proposal which this Bill embodies has been before the public, and especially the Irish public, for nine months at least, and the Bill has passed its first and second reading without a protest. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has naturally considered that it will come under the head of non-contentious business. With regard to the charge that the Government propose to take money out of the Irish Church surplus to endow Roman Catholic Education, nothing of the kind is the case; the Church surplus appears merely as part of the machinery for carrying out the object of the Bill; it will not be one sixpence the poorer at the end of the transaction. The system of giving public money for training colleges is not my system; it was brought into being in 1833 by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and brought forward in a form in which it is impossible that it can stand. It is open to the House to say it will adhere to the system which has been in operation since 1833, to say "We will put all colleges on an equal footing." All I have attempted to do by this Bill is to carry out a policy that has been urgently pressed upon me. I believe the result of the Bill will be that the Presbyterian colleges will greatly gain instead of losing. At the same time I am bound to admit, from the fact that there is at this period of the Session a large body of Members opposed to the Bill, that it is in their 518 power to prevent its passing. I earnestly trust that even at this late hour of the night, the policy announced by my hon. Friend opposite will not be pursued, and that he will be content with the protest he has made. If the hon. Gentleman and his friends adopt a different line of conduct it will be impossible to ask the House to sit up night after night into the early hours of the morning to pass this Bill.

§ (1.56.) MR. SINCLAIR (Falkirk)
The Chief Secretary, by his speech, has opened up a very wide question. It is believed that by this Bill a great blow is going to be struck at the mixed system of education in Ireland, which we who are anxious for the welfare of Irish education desire to see preserved. It will set up denominational training colleges, to which we are opposed. This is not a question which ought to be dealt with at the fag end of a Session, and I, therefore, support the Motion to report Progress.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
The hon. Member says the Bill will set up denominational training colleges. Does he not know that such training colleges already exist and are supported by the State? Then, how it can be said that this Bill will set them up requires a Falkirk intellect to understand. It appears to me that this Motion is what the late Lord Beaconsfield called a "reconnaissance in force," aimed not at the Bill, but at something very different. The Government having brought in a minimum measure ought not to be intimidated by the hon. Member for Falkirk. We are sitting to a late hour, but this delay will simply prolong the Session. I shall be glad to hear what the Government propose to do.

§ (2.0.) MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N)
I do not wish to deal with denominational or mixed education, or to enter into the circumstances in relation to denominationalism in Ireland. My position arises out of the introduction of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund. If that were struck out I should know there is no intention of endowing Roman Catholic institutions out of the money of the disendowed Protestant Church. I feel bound to support the Motion to report Progress for more reasons than 519 one, and one reason is that I consider such a matter should not be debated in the dark, the discussion should be reported and made public, and the discussion taking place now cannot go before the public in a form giving the impression of what is said. I do not shrink from the discussion, but let the Government put it down for a time when it can be discussed freely and openly, not at 2 o'clock in the morning.

§ (2.4.) MR. T. W. RUSSELL
The hon. and learned Member for Longford seems to imagine that he monopolises all the common sense in the House, but we do not appraise the hon. and learned Gentleman at his own value. He has introduced a tone and temper into this discussion no one else sought to import into it. It matters little to me what the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman is of my action, and I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite equally appreciate, the compliments of the hon. Member for West Belfast. I address myself to the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as any man in the House that I have over and over again expressed my desire that this Bill should be discussed at an hour not only when it can be discussed and the discussion made public, but when Divisions can take place upon it. A discussion now will never go before the public; it will never reach Ireland. ["Oh, oh! All the better for you."] This money is to come out of the Church surplus in the first place; it is to be paid back over 30 years, but that Vote may be stopped any year, and then the endowment of Roman Catholic education will take place out of the Church surplus. I have examined the Bill day after day, and the more I examine it the less I like it, and the same is the case with the people of the North of Ireland. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the face of the opposition of Members from Ulster and of English Members, he will insist at such an hour on forcing this Bill down out throats.

§ (2.10.) MR. SEXTON
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to take what course he pleases, but he cannot expect us to accept his account of the contents 520 of a Bill to which, on a former occasion, he invited the hon. Member for Camber" well to withdraw his opposition.

§ *COLONEL SANDYS
I do not often interpose—[Interruptions]—

THE CHAIRMAN
I must request hon. Members not to persist in these unseemly interruptions.

§ *COLONEL SANDYS (Lancashire, S.W., Bootle)
I do not often speak on Irish Debates or separate myself from the lead of the Government, but this question has made issues outside the ties of Party allegiance, and as a supporter of the Government I would press upon my right hon. Friend the desirability of acceding to the Motion now before us. This is not a time to discuss a measure of this importance; there should be no suspicion of "hole and corner" work about a measure of this kind. The greatest dissatisfaction will, I am sure, arise in the country when it comes to be understood that Roman Catholic Colleges are practically to be endowed from the funds of the Protestant Church of Ireland, and I am sure the proposition will not redound to the credit of the Government bringing it forward. The Chief Secretary is acting from the highest motives, but I think he misconceives the situation. The Roman Catholic conspiracy is not to be dealt with by throwing out this sop, and I think the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that this species of placebo will fail in its object, but, in any case, the' Bill requires that open and full consideration which cannot be given to it now at this late hour and at the end of the Session when so few Members are present.

§ MR. WALLACE
I am sorry to have to undergo the mortification of agreeing for once with my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone and differing from our friends from Ireland. Strong anti-denominationalist as I am, I have always protested, and shall continue to protest, against denominational endowment as applied to educational affairs. This Bill seems to me to be an extension of denominational education in a certain part of the Empire, and, therefore, I require more time to consider it. For that reason I shall support the Motion to report Progress.
521 (2.12.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 68.—(Div. List, No. 385.)

§ (2.18.) MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)
Mr. Courtney, I beg to move that you do now leave the Chair.

MR. BYRON REED
I beg to second that.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I regret my hon. Friends think it necessary to take the course they appear to be bent upon; but, of course, if they do insist upon it, it will be impossible for the Government to resist. I may say that some of the objections to the Bill are, as I said before, based on a misconception of the provisions of the Bill. The Irish Church Surplus Fund undoubtedly appears in the Bill. It is a Treasury expedient and nothing more, and if the excision of that Treasury expedient from the Bill would facilitate matters I would be prepared to make the alteration. I assure my hon. Friends that that excision would make no difference in the financial result. I have said this by leave of the Committee. It is impossible to resist against a relatively considerable minority, and therefore under the circumstances I with great reluctance consent to the Motion.

COLONEL NOLAN
I should like to point out that this is the first occasion this Session on which a Bill has been opposed by dilatory Motions, and that these dilatory Motions have been exclusively confined to Conservatives and Liberal Unionists.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
It is very refreshing to hear a condemnation of dilatory Motions from below the Gangway; it is a new feature in our Debates that I hope the Committee will appreciate. I take full responsibility for opposing this Bill, and I want to know what would have been said if any of us had attempted to force a Bill through at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning. Would not torrents of abuse have been poured on our heads from below the Gangway? I oppose the Bill mainly on the ground 522 that this is an attempt to force the Bill down the throats of the House in secrecy, and behind the back of the country. I intend that the country shall know all about it.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Perhaps my hon. Friend will withdraw the Motion, and then I will consent to the Motion that the Chairman do report Progress.

§ MR. SEXTON
Before the Motion is withdrawn, allow me to say that in my judgment the lurid eloquence of the hon. Member for South Tyrone is entirely misapplied. There has been no secrecy; no attempt to force anything. The Secretary for Ireland made a most reasonable proposal, and hon. Gentlemen who appear in opposition to the Bill declined to discuss it. The hon. Member for South Tyrone spoke of something refreshing in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). What is refreshing and instructive is to find out how readily the Representatives of a certain section of Irishmen, who usually are in a great majority here, resort to obstruction when once in a way they find themselves in a minority. I am not ashamed to say, as an opponent of his, that the Chief Secretary has acted in a manner most creditable to him. The few words he has just addressed to the Committee were conceived in a conciliatory and statesmanlike spirit; but conciliation and statesmanship are thrown away on those who are his opponents now. He endeavoured to get rid of the only colourable reason that could be urged against the Bill, namely, that the fund of the Disestablished Church was going to be used in some measure for the purpose of Catholic education. The right hon. Gentleman offered to take the Irish Church Fund out of the Bill. Let it go forth to the country—let it go forth to Ireland, Protestants as well as Catholics—that a certain number of hon. Gentlemen, by dilatory and obstructive tactics, have endeavoured to prevent a Protestant statesman from applying to Ireland that equal treatment of training colleges out of Imperial funds, which for 40 years has, without question, been applied to the whole system of training colleges in England, Scotland, and Wales.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
We cannot defeat the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair, because the Government, I suppose, will support it, but when the Motion to report Progress is made, we can divide, and for my part I will divide. I may point out that when Local Government for Ireland comes to be discussed the Chief Secretary may find himself in exactly the same predicament as he is in now. I think the Government might have shown a little more firmness on this occasion. In any event, I hope that when the Bill is taken again, it will be taken as the first Order.

§ MR. SEXTON
May I ask when the Bill will be taken again?

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I shall put the Bill down for to-morrow, but in face of what has happened, it will be quite impossible to take it after 12 o'clock.