HC Deb 17 March 1892 vol 2 cc1160-79

IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS'

PENSION FUND.

CLASS VI.

"That a sum, not exceeding £90,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, as a Grant in Aid of the Capital of the Pension Fund created under the provisions of 'The National School Teachers (Ireland) Act,1879.'"

Resolution read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

(12.3.) COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

Of course, there are various ways of conducting the Business of the House, and one is by way of "surprise." Now, this being St. Patrick's Day, many Members of the Irish Party are absent from the House attending meetings, political or festive; and I think it is scarcely fair to push on the business in which Irish Members are specially interested. There is a special reason, too, in reference to the circumstances attending the discussion of this Vote in Committee. As a general rule, when these Resolutions come before you, Mr. Speaker, they have had full discussion in Committee of Supply, but in this instance such has not been the case; we have not had, and we could not have, proper discussion in the absence of information, which the Government acknowledged was necessary, in reference to the actuarial calculations of 1886 and 1891. The Government were not then in a position to give us the information. It is a difficult question, only to be dealt with in a business-like way, which the present occasion does not offer; and so I hope the Leader of the House will agree to adjourn the Debate. I may mention, also, that the Committee were influenced by a telegram quoted by the Chief Secretary, purporting to come from a certain body in Dublin representing the teachers of Ireland; but it appears that the message merely came from a section of that Committee, and they did not understand the bearing of the Motion of the First Lord. We claim a discussion, but if we attempt to enter upon it now it will be under great disadvantages. I fear the First Lord does not intend to respond to my request that the discussion should be adjourned until Irish Members are reasonably represented here. This is an occasion when it was well known many of my hon. Friends would be absent. For my part, I make it a rule always to be present in the House of Commons on St. Patrick's night, for the reason that the Government of the day may show a disposition to pass measures that may be extremely detrimental to our country, and at least I can make a protest, as I do now. Now the sum of £90,000 was allotted to Ireland last year, and the first idea of the First Lord was that he would add it to the securities for his Land Purchase Scheme. He said also that it might be appropriated to the benefit of education or of labourers, but he had in his mind the strengthening of the position of the Treasury under his Land Bill. This allocation we objected to losing, basing our objection on the ground that when a similar sum of, I think, £800,000, was allocated to England, it was devoted to the benefit of parents who send their children to school or of school teachers. We urged that this sum of £90,000 should be similarly disposed of for Ireland. Then the First Lord abandoned his proposition, and there was no allocation last year, this sum being hung up, though I pressed to have it temporarily allotted for the benefit of teachers in some way. This proposal, however, was not accepted. Then the Government came forward with a scheme with which for a moment we were taken in, or some of us were, not unnaturally thinking that this sum of £90,000 would improve the condition of teachers by increasing their pensions. Now if this sum were proposed to be devoted to the Teachers' Pension Fund for the increase of pensions, or to give pensions at an earlier ago, I should not disapprove; but that turns out not to be the intention. The sum has been cut down in a particular way in accordance with a system favoured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there were a question of allotting a certain sum in due proportion between two English counties the division would be made according to the population and requirements of each, not on the question of how much Middlesex contributed and how much Yorkshire contributed. But, in dealing with Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman departs from what would be the ordinary rule setting up a standard of contributions to the Exchequer. Now, ever since the Office of Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer was abolished, I have had no faith in the calculations of the Treasury as applied to Ireland, and we have no means of testing them. We know there will naturally be a disposition on the part of official accountants to please their immediate superiors. I do not see how I can enter into a difficult arithmetical argument amid the interruptions of the conversation in which hon. Members are indulging. Ireland, I say, is treated unfairly in this allocation. If you are to allot as between the two Exchequers, the ordinary method which would strike anyone as being fair would be to allot according to the money collected in the two counties. But this does not suit the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he thinks it would give £1,500,000 too much to Ireland, for, says the right hon. Gentleman, much of the production on which revenue is collected is consumed in England. Then with promotion depending on the actuaries' calculations we find the result most unfavourable to Ireland. When we raised the question of the fairness of the allotment the Chancellor of the Exchequer put us off, saying a Committee was to be appointed to inquire into the financial relations between England, Ireland, and Scotland, and there were reasons why we should not prematurely enter into the question. In spite of his promise there does not seem any intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to move for that Committee. Does he mean to wait until the whole of the Opposition are unanimous in favour of such a Committee? (Cries of "Question!") This is the question, whether this £90,000 is a fair proportion for Ireland?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask you whether the hon. and gallant Member is entitled, after this Vote of £90,000 has been applied in a specific way by the Committee, to discuss the policy and equity of the division of the surplus?

MR. SPEAKER

The latter part of the hon. and gallant Member's remarks are not in Order. They are not relevant to the subject.

COLONEL NOLAN

Though I have always looked upon the hon. Member for South Tyrone as a political enemy, I have always thought we might count on his assistance in improving the financial position and material resources of Ireland. I have always given him credit for that, whatever obloquy he may have incurred on account of his political actions. Now, I will suppose this sum of £90,000 a fair proportion—which I do not admit—then I contend that Irish Members, and even the hon. Member for South Tyrone, should have some influence in the allocation of this sum, and that we should not simply be required to defer to the wish of the Government. Really, I think the First Lord should pay some attention to the wishes of Irish Members in such a matter. But the right hon. Gentleman does nothing of the kind. He knows now that 85 Members from Ireland will vote against his Bill, and 15 more would do the same thing if left to their own opinions, unswayed by Party ties. I do not object to Party voting—I am a Party man myself.

MR. SPEAKER

I must recall the hon. and gallant Member to the subject immediately before the House.

COLONEL NOLAN

My objection to this Resolution is, in the first place, that if this £90,000 is a fair proportion for Ireland, then it ought to be allotted in the same way as the allotment has been made in England, to the benefit of the parents who send their children to school, or to the benefit of the teachers. That is my first proposition. Now, does this appropriation of the money benefit the teachers? No, it does not in any possible way. Under the Treasury Order of 1886 every existing teacher can claim his pension against the fund allotted for the purpose. The fund allotted for these pensions is derived from an Irish source—£1,300,000 from the funds of the late Established Church in Ireland. This money was voted for a Teachers' Pension Fund on the Motion of Mr. Meldon, then Member for Kildare, and the Treasury guaranteed a pension at a certain age to every teacher who subscribed to the fund. This was in 1879 or 1880. Which Government it was that changed the rules I do not know; but it is an extraordinary fact that the Government, challenged again and again for information as to the actuarial calculations, refrain from saying whether it was a Liberal or a Conservative Government which changed the rules in 1885. However that may be, the Government of the time, acting upon actuarial calculations, made a change by which the pensions of teachers were increased, and undoubtedly it was a generous policy. Actuarial calculations justified the change, the Treasury still having the responsibility for making good any deficiency arising in the fund. But not until 1891 did we hear anything of the fund being unable to stand the claims upon it. It was then said, on the faith of other actuarial calculations, that the fund was inadequate to support the increased rate of pensions. In the same year this amount of £90,000 was allotted for Irish purposes, and various claims were put forward for it, and finally the Government claim it to set up this fund again. But we have not the means of testing the calculations by which the insolvency of the fund is asserted. But, apart from that, I ask, how does this disposition of the £90,000 benefit the teachers? It does not do so. The right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that existing teachers are not benefited It seems to me that the teachers will derive the very minimum of advantage from this £90,000. The Government might have given the money in any other way—in salaries, or in capitation grant, for instance. This £90,000 has been absolutely and utterly wasted, so far as the Irish teachers are concerned. They will get no benefit from it; or, if they do get any benefit, it would be so small and infinitesimal as to be of no practical use to any teacher. The only thing you do is to strengthen your Treasury balance. The Chief Secretary is to be allowed to allot this money as he likes, and not as the Irish teachers or the Irish Members wish. The Government ought to give the money to the teachers in some tangible form, as nearly as possible approximating to the way in which the money was given to England. If they use it to strengthen the Treasury balance, I say the teachers will get a very slight advantage. It is very difficult to discuss this subject properly, but having made this introductory statement, I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to postpone this question until the Irish Members are able to be present in larger numbers. I think every English Member of any independence, who does not simply follow the Government, will feel it is reasonable that this question should be adjourned. I beg, therefore, to move the Adjournment of the Debate.

MR. SPEAKER

I shall not put that Question after the hon. and gallant Gentleman has spoken 40 minutes without alleging a single argument for Adjournment. His own speech is an argument against the Adjournment of the Debate.

(12.40.) MR. J. O'CONNOR

I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned. I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, to do so, or to appear to make any Motion opposed to your ruling. But I agree with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend when he says that this is no day, and this is no time of the day or the night, to take an important Vote with regard to Ireland. It is one upon which the Irish people have fixed their attention. ("Hear, hear!") I am quite in sympathy with the "Hear, hears" of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I say that this £90,000 and the whole question of its application is a question that ought not to be decided at the hour of 1 o'clock on St. Patrick's night. You ought to know that most of the Members from Ireland are engaged on St. Patrick's night in all parts of this country, perhaps educating the people—not only their own people, but the English people—upon questions affecting the General Election that is near upon us. We are perfectly serious about this matter. My hon. and gallant Friend may have regaled the House to-night with a speech evidently of some length according to Mr. Speaker, but there is nothing that my hon. and gallant Friend has said that could not be endorsed by every Irish Member sitting on the Benches below the Gangway, with regard to the importance of this question and the desirability of discussing it at a more convenient time. I would seriously ask the Chief Secretary whether he does not consider it would not be better to postpone the discussion of this matter to some future occasion? I think it would be better for himself, because I am sure he would wish to have the concurrence of the Members from Ireland with regard to his proposal. He cannot have the concurrence of Gentlemen from Ireland at this hour of the morning. He cannot have the united support of those who come from Ireland to discuss matters of the kind now before the House.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Motion.

MR. J. O'CONNOR

I moved the Adjournment of the Debate, and I am endeavouring to give reasons for the Motion. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be fair to Ireland and the National Teachers to press this matter to-night?

MR. JACKSON

The teachers have asked for it.

MR. J. O'CONNOR

Yes, after a manner; but not all of them, only some of the officials. There is no stauncher friend of the National teachers than I am. I have appealed for them year after year, and I have been met from the Bench opposite with denials of their grievances. You cannot deny my claim. It is in the interest of the teachers that I speak. I want to have this Fund properly administered, and placed upon a proper foundation. That cannot be done at this hour of the night. There must be no hasty despatch of this question, and it is for that reason I am prompted to move that this Debate be now adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. John O'Connor.)

(12.48.) MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I think my hon. Friend misapprehended your ruling, which was not addressed to the merits of the Motion for the Adjournment. I rise for the purpose of supporting the appeal of my hon. Friend. It is no disparagement, after the House has been engaged for ten hours, to say that Members are not disposed to give to the question the careful examination which a complicated financial question of this sort requires, in order properly to appreciate it. I am prepared to go on if the House should so decree, and submit the case against the proposals of the Government. But I am decidedly of opinion that the case cannot receive the attention we have a right to expect. This Vote was taken in Committee on the 29th February, and after unavailing applications for information the discussion of the Vote was terminated by the application of the Closure. Eighteen days have passed since the Vote was taken. Many Irish Members—and I am one—waited expecting from day to day that this Vote would be taken at a reasonable hour. The subject is one which is engaging public attention, and I shall be prepared to show that the right hon. Gentleman was grossly in error on a former occasion, and at present as to the position of the national teachers in regard to the allocation of this money. I warned the right hon. Gentleman that Irish Members could not be present to-night. Out of 86 Irish Members—who are at one on this question—scarcely a dozen are present. It is well known to the Government that public duties which the Irish Members consider as imperative as attendance in this House have taken them elsewhere. Is it reasonable in the case of this £90,000 of undeniably Irish money to take away that money against our will and apply it upon a conjectural but remote deficiency in the Pension Fund, which will not be for the benefit of any person now living, after midnight when the proceedings cannot be reported, and when the Irish people cannot know what we have been doing and when the votes of the Irish Members will be conspicuous by their absence? Ireland has been very hardly treated in this matter, and such a mode of dealing with this money would be nothing short of a scandal. The House will be very much occupied with the question of education in Ireland, which raises some difficult and thorny questions of principle. I am disposed to treat that Bill in no obstructive spirit, but I ask the Chief Secretary whether he thinks he is acting wisely and paving the way for a reasonable and harmonious discussion of that Bill by proposing to push this proposal down our throats tonight? I submit it is not reasonable to take the Vote to-night, and that it ought to be postponed till to-morrow, or even a Saturday Sitting for my part rather than force it through to-night. Even on Monday the Report of this Vote could be taken, as the Appropriation Bill could be brought in as the last thing on Monday.

(12.53.) MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

I think it most unfortunate that the speech of the hon. Gentleman was not delivered at 12 o'clock instead of 1. It is rather unfair that we should have been treated to a 40-minute speech on the merits of the question winding up with a Motion for Adjournment, and that the real reasons for the Adjournment should be reserved till 1 o'clock, when the hon. Member for West Belfast rose.

MR. SEXTON

I did not reserve my reasons. I understood the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) rose to move the Adjournment.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Quite so; but the actual outcome of the situation is as I have described it. I think it rather too bad that Members should be kept till 1 o'clock before the real reasons for the Adjournment are stated. I am not going to urge the Government to go on. There is a great deal to be said for the position taken up by the hon. Member. I think St. Patrick's Day is an awkward day for such a discussion, especially one involving figures and facts. If the Government choose to adjourn the Debate let them do so, but I protest against a Motion being made at 1 which ought to have been made at 12.

(12.55.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I deeply regret that the course of business has caused any inconvenience to the hon. Gentleman or his friends. I know he has devoted a great deal of time to this question, and I know he desires to place his views before the House at a convenient time, and before a full audience. It is no fault of the Government that the Debate has been so long adjourned. I hoped to bring it on before this, but the length of the Debates on other subjects in which the Irish Members have taken a very full share have so far delayed the necessary course of financial business that I see no alternative to taking the discussion at what I frankly admit to be an inconvenient hour. The hon. Gentleman suggested a Saturday Sitting, but I think he will see that would be an arrangement of very great inconvenience. It is better, I think, to go on now that we have embarked upon the discussion, and we have already heard one full speech upon the subject under debate. If it were delayed till Monday we shall have to deal with the First Reading of the Appropriation Bill and the other Report of Supply, and under these circumstances the hon. Gentleman, I fear, would find himself thrust into a later hour of the evening on Monday than he is to-night. Therefore I would very respectfully press upon him, although he may do so at some disadvantage, to lay before the House the arguments that he has to advance against the proposals of the Government. I beg of him not to press the Motion for Adjournment, to which the House cannot accede without involving us in inconvenience greater than the present.

(12.58.) MR. O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.)

I appeal to the First Lord to reconsider his position. This Debate is of first consequence to Ireland. In the first place, there are a great many Irish Members absent to-night on political business. In the next place, the newspapers in Ireland will be occupied with reports of the proceedings of the National festival throughout the country—a matter probably of very little value from the English, but of great importance from the Irish point of view. It is important that the proceedings on this question should be fully reported in the Irish papers. I ask the House to reconsider whether a Division of this importance should be forced to-night, when everyone knows by experience that this is a night upon which a large number of Irish Members cannot be present. Members are absent from the House engaged upon other business, and national business, and I say it is unfair for the majority of the House on such an occasion to insist upon proceeding with a matter so contentious as this, on Irish matters, and to attempt to force it through by the votes of English Members. I think you would do well to consider this, and I do not think you will make much progress if you now insist upon going on. Whether you succeed in your exercise of force now or not it will not help you afterwards. You have us at a disadvantage now, and your brute force may succeed, but we shall make you pay for your victory afterwards.

(1.1.) MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

The First Lord of the Treasury scarcely dealt with the main point just now, when he referred to the relative inconvenience of a Saturday Sitting, and of the resumption of this Debate on Monday. That is not the real point at issue. The important point, and what I may put as a Constitutional point, is that the Irish Members, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware are not fairly represented now. They are unable to attend in their usual muster, just as on other nights other Members find it is not possible to be present. It has been the usual rule to observe some courtesy in these matters, and for the proper furtherance of the business of the country to consult the wishes of sections of Members in regard to matters in which they are specially interested. Irish and Scotch Business has often been deferred on account of the absence of Irish or Scotch Members. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, this is a question involving the disposition of a great sum of money, but it is a question in which English Members are not interested—not a tenth of the Members opposite know or care anything about it; and is it fair, is it reasonable; is it, I would say, a Constitutional doctrine, that a large sum of money intended for the benefit of Ireland should be disposed of without having the benefit of the opinions of the Representatives of those most interested? I do not wish to proceed with any recriminating argument; but I may just remind the right hon. Gentleman of the irritation felt by his own Party on a recent occasion by the attempt to take what they called a "snatch Division," many Members being absent at Ascot, and not, I think, on political business.

(1.5.) Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

(1.5.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 39.—(Div. List, No. 37.)

Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

(1.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 121.—(Div. List, No. 38.)

Original Question again proposed.

(1.22.) MR. SEXTON

The Amendment I now beg to move—

MR. SPEAKER

I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must inform him that he has already spoken on the Main Question.

MR. SEXTON

I think, Sir, there is some misapprehension. In speaking before I supported the Motion for Adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) distinctly moved the Adjournment, and upon that Question no Member had a right to address the House until it was put from the Chair. It could not be put until seconded. The hon. Member seconded the Motion, speaking to the question that the House do now adjourn. Having thus spoken, and on the Main Question then before the House, I am exceedingly sorry to inform the hon. Member that he would be out of Order in speaking again.

MR. SEXTON

May I observe, Sir, that as I deliberately abstained from seconding the Motion for Adjournment, and as I informed the House I supported that Motion, was it not reasonable to suppose that I should have been reminded that I could not speak to the Motion until it had been seconded?

MR. SPEAKER

If an hon. Member moves the Adjournment and another Member supports it, I have no option whatever. The hon. Member must have risen to second the Motion, and the Motion was not complete before the House until it was seconded.

(1.25.) DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I beg to propose, as an Amendment to the Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee"— That this House declines to appropriate any amount of the Grant in Aid of Education in Ireland otherwise than towards the current use of education in Ireland.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member would not be in Order in so doing. The Question which I have put from the Chair is that the House do agree with the Committee. The hon. Member can divide against that Motion.

DR. CLARK

There are two ways of applying this money—the method suggested by the Government, or the method we have adopted for England for the benefit of primary education. Now, the purpose for which this is designed by the Government is the Pension Fund, to make that fund solvent. The fund is not solvent for the reason that the rates paid by the teachers are not sufficient to meet the claims upon the fund. But that is the fault of the Treasury. Upon the payments made the teachers have been guaranteed their pensions. Now when the Constabulary Fund was declared to be not in a solvent state, the Government came to the House for a grant for Imperial resources; and I ask now, is it fair that the solvency of this fund should be established at the cost of the taxpayers of Ireland? I do not quite understand how the Government arrive at the conclusion that this fund is not solvent. One actuary has valued the assets, and he comes to a wholly different result to another actuary, and I suppose this difference arises from setting negative values on the one side of the balance sheet or the other. But I suppose there must be a third actuarial valuation, and until we have that I do not see that we know what the amount of money is that, will be required to make the fund solvent. With the facts before us we can decide what grant should be made from the Imperial Exchequer, for I agree that it should not be at the expense of current education in Ireland. The Irish school managers are very much in the position I have pointed to. They expected that this money would go to them for the purpose of relieving the burden of primary education. The probability is that the teachers will suffer if this money goes to the source the Government propose, and is not used either in the form of a Capitation Grant or in the form of a percentage upon the teachers' salaries. The equivalent grant to Ireland for primary education was to be devoted to primary education as it was in Scotland. Why should the Government take advantage of there being a deficiency, or a supposed deficiency in one of their funds, to grab this for the purpose of meeting the deficiency? Hitherto the Irish have always got what they wanted from the Treasury, but now the Government are going to apply to Ireland what they have applied to Scotland. They are going to deal in rather a mean and niggardly manner with Ireland. I think they really ought to hand over this miserable sum. On the general question of the grant I hope that the House will give 10s. per head to Ireland as in England, and not a sum of 6s. 10½d. per head; but on the question immediately before the House I oppose the grant on the ground that the money ought not to be used for this charity.

(1.34.) MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

I feel very reluctant to take any part in this Debate. I admit there is some urgency for the work the Government have before them; but I have not risen without consideration to join in the appeal made from this part of the House. I put it to the First Lord of the Treasury: Suppose it had been a question of Scottish education and money, and suppose the overwhelming majority of the Scottish Members were absent, owing to St. Andrew's Day, or any other occasion, would the First Lord of the Treasury, as a Scotsman, and possessing in a very considerable degree confidence on the part of the Scottish people personally, have gone on with this question, even in the difficulties in which the Government found itself? I venture to say he would not have attempted it for one moment. There is another point. Even supposing the suggestion of the Government were acceptable to Ireland, I think it would be unfair and unreasonable to proceed in the absence of the Irish Members. When we know, however, that the proposal of the Government is not to treat Ireland with an equality and on the same terms on which England, Scotland, and Wales have been treated, then it becomes a very much graver thing to force upon the Irish people, in the absence of the Irish Representatives, a proposal of this kind. I think when the First Lord of the Treasury takes up this position it is time for some of his Colleagues on that side of the House to suggest that there had better be a postponement of such a monstrous proposal. The responsibility in this matter rests with the Treasury, and if there has been an error we should pay for it out of the Exchequer, and not out of the poorer part of the Empire. You are robbing the Irish and lessening the means at their disposal for the bettering of the education of their country. We have been assured by the Government that their disposition is to treat Ireland with equal justice with other parts of the Empire, and that there is to be similarity. Why, even in a paltry affair of this kind you cannot be straightforward, but you are subjecting the reputation of this country to a charge of utter meanness in dealing with Ireland on worse terms than Scotland or any other part of the Kingdom. I think I have given forcible reasons for the appeal to the Government to delay this subject.

(1.39.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have already expressed my regret—

At this stage the Irish Members walked out of the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have already expressed my regret that this Debate should be forced by the course of Business in this House. I also regret that the hon. Member for West Belfast, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, has been excluded from speaking on this subject from the fact of his having supported the Motion for the Adjournment; but I will now appeal to the House to come to a decision upon the point. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asked whether the course we have been pursuing would have been pursued had Scotland been concerned. I can assure him it would have been pursued. He appears to think this is the first time this question has been discussed. But the question has been discussed at great length already. And I would respectfully remind the House that in order to transact business it was not necessary that a debate which had been continued so fully that it had to be closed in Committee should be repeated at great length upon Report. We had a full debate, and, even setting aside the paramount necessity of finishing Report of Supply to-night, even apart from that, we ought now to come to the conclusion on a question which has been very fully debated in a House in which the Irish Members were largely represented.

(1.41.) MR. LABOUCHERE

Then I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish Secretary declines to discuss this matter.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It has been discussed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

To discuss this matter at this stage. A speech was made by the hon. Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). He put forward his reasons. They may be good or bad. That speech has not been answered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Therefore we may assume that the Government are not prepared to discuss it on Report. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that, putting aside the question of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) not being able to speak, the Irish Members who sit on this side of the House are perfectly right in leaving the House; because, although the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast might have spoken if he had not been ruled out of Order, no reply would have been made by the Irish Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) asks are we not to have an explanation? No. This is the attitude of the Government. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that the Irish Members consulted their dignity by leaving the House.

(1.43.) MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

I think it right to say, inasmuch as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) made a reference to myself, that I made no appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury. If I had made any appeal it would have been to this effect—that he should elect either to go on, or let us go home. For my part, I should prefer to go on, because I do not believe in the Government being forced to hang up every bit of business, and that it seems to me is the policy of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. We hung up the Vote on Account to-night, and it seems we are now to hang up this business also, and that no business is to be done. I object to that. On the merits of this question, I have considerable relations with a large number of National School teachers in Ireland, and the position I take on the matter is this, and I wish it to be distinctly known in Ireland. In 1885 this surplus was found, according to the actuary, to be something like £190,000. In 1891, about five years after that, there was a deficit of £190,000. I think I am practically right in the figures. What the Government has done is this. Here was a sum of £90,000. The National School teachers had no absolute rights; it was not theirs of right. It might have been devoted, for example, to technical education. It might have been devoted to a purpose with which I have extreme sympathy—the higher education of women in Ireland. But, seeing that the deficit exists, the Government take this £90,000, and they are actually giving it to the teachers when they might have expended it on other educational efforts. That is a matter upon which the National teachers are profoundly interested, and though I should have liked the £90,000 to have gone to education direct, still I am not prepared to run the chance of the teachers losing the Vote, and it is for that reason that I am supporting the Government to-night, and that I have urged them not to give way.

(1.45.) THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,) Leeds, N.

I would like to say two or three words in answer to what has been said by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I waited, as I thought it was respectful to do, hoping to be able to reply to the case put forward as I expected by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). We were anxious that there should be a full opportunity afforded to anyone who wished to take part in the Debate. It is not the fault of the Government that we find ourselves in this situation. The Government have no responsibility for it at all. We were most anxious to afford every opportunity for discussion. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave notice at the beginning of the business to-day that he proposed to take this Report to-night, and the hon. Member for West Belfast was in his place at the time. He said across the House that he thought it would be late, but made no complaint about it, and there was no indication to the Government in any form or shape that there was any indisposition to take this Report to-night. The hon. Member for Bradford really, I think, misapprehends the situation. He spoke about the money as if the teachers were entitled to it.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

Anything I said was the very reverse. I said they might have consideration for the deficiency made up in other ways, but that this money was sacred to the purpose for which the money was applied in England.

MR. JACKSON

The money was applied in England for the relief of school pence. Will the hon. Member tell me how he is going on the 18th March to apply it to the current financial year?

MR. ILLINGWORTH

I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman expects me to answer a question of that sort, but if I had been in a position I would have made provision beforehand, and there would have been a sense of justice in that position.

MR. JACKSON

I think the House will see that the hon. Member rather shifts his position. I take it that he does not think on consideration that it would be practicable to adopt the suggestion he has made. I do not mean to go into the merits of the question now. I am extremely sorry that Irish Members have not availed themselves of this opportunity; but, as I have said, that is not the fault of the Government. The Government gave notice beforehand, and I think we have shown no want of respect to Irish Members.

(1.49.) MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I think it is rather hard that we should have to sit and listen to the protest we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman. The point he wishes to make is that there is no ground for complaint on this side of the House, because, forsooth, notice was given by the Leader of the House this afternoon; but everybody can see perfectly well that that is a transparent excuse. The Irish Members had made all their arrangements, probably a week-ago, to be away from the House to-night. You are dealing with this money in a way that may or may not be consonant to the wishes of the Irish Members, and they have a perfect right to discuss the matter. The fact that the Debate in Committee was closured has no more to do with it than the right hon. Gentleman's excuse.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member is quite out of Order.

MR. CONYBEARE

I respectfully submit that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has forced us to stay here till 2 o'clock in the morning, and yet he sits down deliberately saying he is not going to give us any further information with regard to this matter. The Leader of the Irish Party here to-night, the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), complains that he has been excluded from the discussion of the question. A generous Government would have assisted my hon. Friend out of his difficulty. The Leader of the House and the Chief Secretary for Ireland know perfectly well that the hon. Member for West Belfast is the Member who has the whole of these details at his fingers' end; yet he is excluded from the discussion of this question, and the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible above everyone else for this Debate—

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 18.—(Div. List, No. 39.)

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

(2.4.) The House divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 17.—(Div. List, No. 40.)

Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—put, and agreed to.