HC Deb 20 March 1893 vol 10 cc609-19

Resolutions 7 to 12 [see page 417] agreed to. 13. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, 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, 1893,for the Expenses of the University of London.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London, University)

appealed to the Government to consider the question of additional accommodation for the University of London. There had been a large addition in the numbers who came up for examination, as was shown by the great increase of fees. Instead of being a burden on the Treasury, there was an actual profit on it of £2,000 a year. In the scientific examinations the need for room was extremely urgent. Several years ago it was contemplated to extend the buildings in South Kensington, but nothing had yet been done. The authorities of the University found the greatest difficulty in accommodating the candidates who came up for examination, and he, therefore, trusted the matter would receive the early attention of the Government.

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, W. R.,) Rotherham

When this Vote was in Supply, the Secretary to the Treasury expressed regret that the right hon. Baronet was not present, and he particularly mentioned the subject of the new buildings. The subject needs careful consideration, and I believe that attention will be given to it.

MR. A. C. MORTON

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would ask the authorities of the University of London to consider the question of reducing the fees? The University was now used by a large number of persons who could not pay high fees, and if there was a profit made out of the Institution he thought it should go to the reduction of the fees. MR. ACLAND: I will do that.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolution 14 [see page 471] agreed to. 15 "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £157,500, 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, 1893, for the expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in giving effect to the ' Irish Education Act, 1892.'

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

expressed the hope that the Government would see their way on an early day to bring to a conclusion the question which had long agitated the Board of National Education in Ireland,—namely, the admission of the schools of the Christian Brothers to a share in the grant of National education. He did not think it was fair either to the members of the Board themselves or to the Christian Brothers, or to Ireland at large, that this question should be allowed to rest in its present condition. The vast majority of the Board of National Education of Ireland had twice made a proposition to the Government, and twice it had been rejected by the Government. Perhaps the Chief Secretary expected that these gentlemen would for the third time put forward some other proposition; but what guarantee had they that their proposition would not be rejected once more? Suppose that occurred, and supposing that these gentlemen—finding themselves refused access to the minds of the Government—took it into their heads to resign, what a plight the Board of National Education and the Government would be in. When distinguished men, such as Lord Justice Fitzgibbon and Lord Chief Baron Palles and other eminent and distinguished men, put forward a view of this kind, it was rather hard to be told by the Government— "We don't agree with your proposition; you can make others if you like, but we make no suggestion for the solution of the difficulty; we throw the whole responsibility upon you." That, he thought, was not the way to meet a difficulty. He might be told that the Lord Lieutenant bad not the burden cast upon him of making a suggestion for the solution of the difficulty, but still, things of that kind were generally done. Very soon the Compulsory Education Act would come into operation in Ireland, but it would never be effectively worked until the question was settled; and he thought that after the valuable speech from the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, who represented a considerable section of opinion on the question in the Tory Party, the Government ought not to be afraid of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). It was idle for the Government to expect—supported as it was by the vast majority of national opinion in the country—they could ever hope to satisfy gentlemen like the Member for South Tyrone. The effort of the Government ought to be to satisfy the majority of the country—that was the effort of the Government in England, and it ought to be the same in Ireland. He would allow the hon. Member for South Tyrone to howl himself black in the face before he pleased him. It was the majority of the people the Government had got to please. He thought the action of the late Government in this matter was most unfair. They waited until their last day in Office, the day of the Division on the Vote of Censure, before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) wrote this letter to the National Board of Education throwing the difficulty into the lap of the succeeding Administration. Let the present Administration then deal with the difficulty in a manner that would satisfy the vast majority of the Nationalist Members, the vast majority of National opinion in the country, and a large section of Protestant opinion in the country. They had been under Tory Government in Ireland for seven years. Let the Irish people now get a taste of Liberal Government, and he assured the Chief Secretary for Ireland that nothing would give greater pleasure to the people of Ireland than this proposed concession to the Christian Brothers.

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

I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this discussion in Order? Is it possible to discuss the question of the admission of the Christian Brothers' Schools on the Vote for the National Education Board?

COLONEL NOLAN

On the point of Order, I wish to say that this Vote ought to be divided amongst the Christian Brothers. It is most unfair that they should be excluded from a share in it.

MR. SPEAKER

It is not out of Order to discuss this matter now.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, he never uttered one single word against the Christian Brothers' Schools being allowed the advantage of the National Board, provided always they conformed to the Rules of the Board. The position which he took up—the position which the Presbyterians of Ireland and a large number of Protestants took up—was this: that if the schools — whether they were Christian Brothers' Schools or Church Education Schools—were not willing to conform to the Rules of the National Education Board, they could not expect to receive State aid. The moment these schools were ready to conform to these Rules and Regulations no action on the part of the House of Commons was necessary to admit them to the advantages of the Board of Education. It was simply because these schools refused to conform to the Rules which had been in operation for 60 years that they were outside the privileges of the National Board, and the position which he and his friends took up was this—that the Rules of the National Board made the system of education in Ireland a non-sectarian system, but the admission of these schools, whether Catholic or Protestant, which refused to conform to the Rules, would make it a sectarian system. If the system was to be changed from a non-sectarian to a sectarian system it ought to be done by Parliament, and not by a Board sitting in Dublin, no matter how respectable it might be— a Board that was purely administrative, and which had never been intended to have legislative powers. He admitted that the Christian Brothers were doing excellent work, and so was the Church Education Society, but these schools were excluded from the benefits of the grant by their own act. The remedy was in their own hands; the advantages of the Board of Education were open to them if they choose to comply with the Rules.

MR. STEWART WALLACE (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)

I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very substantial body of Presbyterian opinion in. Ireland opposed to the views put forward in this matter by the hon. Member for South Tyrone.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

I make no complaint against the hon. Member for Louth for mentioning, in the incidental way he has done, this subject. I do not at all wonder that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen of his creed and opinions take every reasonable opportunity of pressing this subject on the consideration of every English Government, whether Liberal or Tory, and of pressing it on the attention of the House. We are within measurable distance of the date when compulsion will come into force in Ireland. On the 1st of January, 1894, Ireland will be more or less effectively placed under the compulsory system. I foresee, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jackson) foresaw when he passed the Act of 1892, that the introduction of compulsion would, perhaps, immediately, and certainly at no distant date, fail to force on the attention of the Government of the day the question as to the terms on which the Christian Brothers would be admitted to the benefits of the National Board. I do not think the hon. Member for South Tyrone will deny that contention. The hon. Gentleman's opposition in this matter I do not quite understand. He is anxious for the House to believe that he does not object to the proposed admission of the Christian Brothers' Schools, but that his action and the action of his friends has been dictated by a strong opinion that the question is one that should be settled by Parliament, and not by what he calls an Administrative Body sitting in Dublin. He does not say what kind of proposal he himself or his friends would support on the floor of this House. I think my hon. Friend would not expect me to go into the subject to-night. As the House and everyone knows, it is one of extraordinary complexity, one of great difficulty, and one that requires the most delicate consideration. I can only assure my hon. and learned Friend that I am just as alive as he is to the fact that the bulk of opinion in Ireland is favourable to the inclusion of the Christian Brothers' Schools within the scheme on terms which shall not entirely upset the existing system of education in Ireland. I am told that in Ireland the mixed system is in force over a great extent of Ireland, but I can assure my hon. and learned Friend, and those he represents, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway (Colonel Nolan), that we have the subject fully in mind, and will do the best we can, even in the midst of other pressing engagements, to see our way to some settlement, but I can make no promise, I can enter into no pledge, only give that general assurance. I am aware of the importance of the subject being settled before the 1st January, 1894.

MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)

There are two points I would wish to refer to. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. M Healy) wished the House to understand from his remarks that there had been some delay on my part in dealing with this question.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I said you waited until the last day.

MR. JACKSON

And by that statement he wished the House to believe there had been some unnecessary delay, otherwise I do not see the object of the remark. The House will remember this Bill was almost the last business transacted by the House, and so close was it run that a verbal mistake that was made in the Bill we refrained from altering because there was not time to send it down from the House of Lords to have the necessary Amendment sanctioned here. I forget the date of the passing of the Bill, but it was towards the end of June, and if the House thinks that at such a time, with so much work in hand, with so much to do, the lapse of about three weeks was an unnecessary length of time, I am willing to leave it to the House.

An hon. MEMBER

It was more than three weeks.

MR. JACKSON

I understood the hon. and learned Member to say the 22nd of July.

MR. J. MORLEY

The date of the letter of the right hon. Gentleman was the 11th of August.

MR. JACKSON

Even though it were, I have explained this occurred at a time when there was so much work to do that I do not think there was any unnecessary delay. The other point I wish to refer to is that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley). I think he is mistaken as regards the application of the date of compulsion to this particular question. The question of the Christian Brothers' Schools became a question of greater importance to them by reason of the freeing of education from school pence in the other schools in Ireland; but this took place on the 1st October, nearly six months ago, the date for compulsion is 1st January, l894, there fore there is, so far as I am able to judge, no point in the date of compulsion; that does not affect the Christian Brothers' Schools at all. I think it does not affect them at all, because, if children are in attendance at the Christian Brothers' schools, they are free from compulsory action—the fact of the children attending frees them from any action that could be taken against them or their parents. No doubt the question is made more pressing by the fact that the other schools in Ireland have, most of them, been freed, and, therefore, the Christian Brothers' Schools are placed at a disadvantage greater than before if they had to compete against free schools. So far as the date of compulsion is concerned, I do not see that it affects the question at all. As regards the admission of the Christian Brothers' Schools and the Education Commissioners, I say nothing on that question; the right hon. Gentleman "will deal with it in his own time and in his own way. I quite admit the difficulty of the question he has to deal with, but I wish to point out, as far as we were concerned, there was no unnecessary delay considering the enormous amount of work; the Election was shortly coming upon us, and, therefore, I do not think the hon. Member for Louth haw any cause of grievance.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

was scarcely disposed to accept the apology which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. JACKSON

I made no apology.

MR. SEXTON

Then the explanation which he had made concerning the period which had elapsed between the rising of the House and the Election. The Bill passed in June, but the letter of the right hon. Gentleman was not written until August, and he (Mr. Sexton) should have thought that he would have considered it expedient to have written at a much earlier date than he did. He did not write until the eve of his exit from Office, although he had promised to deal with the matter immediately. But the unfortunate matter was that the letter was written by the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose, avowed again and again in debate, of bringing the schools of the Christian Brothers and other schools within the limits of the National system of education. But there was another point the right hon. Gentleman saw no importance in—that was the date of compulsion. In his (Mr. Sexton's) opinion that was a matter of considerable importance. The Education Act applied only to the cities and towns of Ireland, and not to the rural districts. In those cities and large towns the Catholics had no option but to send their children to the Christian Brothers' Schools. But the Christian Brothers' Schools insisted upon receiving a fee in order to keep up their schools, and therefore, if free education was to be given in all the other schools, it would become a very serious matter for the Christian Brothers. It had been admitted over and over again in the House that they could not compel a parent to send his or her child to a school in reference to which they entertained a conscientious objection.

MR. JACKSON

The hon. Member misses the point of my remark. I said they would be in attendance on the 1st January as much as they are now.

MR. SEXTON

said that that depended. There was now no compulsion, and from the 1st January there would be compulsion, which would be the law, and unless they provided a fee for the parent to send his child to school, the compulsion would be a dead letter. Could not the right hon. Gentleman sec the difference between a state of law where the parent had no option but to send his child to school and the case where they could not force the child to attend on account of the conscientious objection of the parent? He (Mr. Sexton) saw a fundamental difference, and he believed the law would be brought into discredit, and disgrace would be brought upon the Imperial Parliament. Therefore he said that before the 1st January next it was necessary to make provision for constituting free and compulsory education in all the schools alike. He heard with considerable satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), but he did not think it contained anything new, because they had discussed this whole question on a recent Wednesday, when the hon. Member explained the views that he held. The Christian Brothers bad done all they could to conform to the Rules and Regulations. They had agreed to an examination of the pupils, they admitted inspection, and there was only one small and trifling question now left in dispute. The Christian Brothers had gone as far as they could to bring themselves into harmony with the existing system of education in Ireland. From what had occurred in the Debate the other Wednesday he expected the right hon. Gentleman would exert himself between that time and the 1st January to bring about such an agreement. He hoped he might take the promise of that Wednesday in an unrestricted sense. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would feel sufficient interest in the prosperity of the Education Act to bring it into real operation between this and the 1st January. He admitted the present heavy duties of the Government, but he was so sensible of the great value of the Christian Brothers, and of the great importance generally of this question, that he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would further inquire into it, and see if by the exercise of a little common sense something could not be done to complete the system of National education in Ireland.

SIR THOMAS LEA (Londonderry, S.)

said, they all desired that the Christian Brothers should derive whatever benefit they could from the system of National education, and there was, he thought, very little difference between the Chief Secretary and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). But what they were determined upon was this: that there should be no upsetting of mixed education in Ireland by the action of the National Board in Dublin without discussion and the assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That was the position which he and his friends took up. The hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. S. Wallace) said that he spoke on behalf of the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland. He (Sir T. Lea) denied that he represented anything of the kind.

MR. S. WALLACE

said, that he only opposed the views of the hon. Member for South Tyrone.

SIR THOMAS LEA

said, that that was not so. The hon. Member had asserted in the House that he represented the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland.

MR. S. WALLACE

said, that he was a resident in Belfast, a native of Ulster, and was entitled to speak regarding the Presbyterian feeling there.

SIR THOMAS LEA

said, that the hon. Member did not attend the meetings of the General Assembly in Belfast, and, therefore, he knew nothing of the resolutions they had passed there.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member is rather deviating from the subject before the House.

SIR THOMAS LEA

said, that what he wished to state was that the Presbyterian General Assembly had passed resolutions in favour of the views of his hon. Friend (Mr. T. W. Russell) and entirely against the views of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. S. Wallace). The opinion of the Presbyterians in the North of Ireland was that a mixed system of education had been very beneficial to all classes, and they were determined to oppose any other system as far as they could.

MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)

said that the hon. Member who had just spoken had referred to the feeling in the North of Ireland as being contrary to that stated by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. S. Wallace), but there was this one fact in favour of the hon. Member for Lime-house, and that was that in Belfast and all the other large towns in the North of Ireland Presbyterians had no separate schools of their own. He entirely agreed with the remark that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson), that the question as regards the Christian Brothers was intensified by the fact that free education had been given last year. At the present moment in the South of Ireland Catholics had to pay school fees, while the Protestants could send their children to school free, and he maintained that that was an injustice which ought not to be allowed to go on longer than the Government could possibly help. It was a great in- justice that the Christian Brothers should get no support for their schools except what was derived from the fees of the children. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be able to go as far as the Government had gone in England in support of voluntary schools. The Christian Brothers' Schools were nothing more than voluntary schools like they had in England, and which obtained grants at the present time.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he thought it was ridiculous to refer to the resolutions passed by the Presbyterian General Assembly, and it would not have been more ridiculous to say that Rules passed by Catholics should govern the teaching of Scotch Presbyterian schools. The Catholics did not want to interfere with the education of the Presbyterians or any other non-Catholic denomination, but the Presbyterians were most anxious to interfere with the Christian Brothers' Schools. What he rose chiefly for was to see if he could extract a little more information from the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the 1st of January, 1894, as the date when compulsion would come into force. What he wished to know was whether that would be in time to get the matter on the next year's Estimates? If it was a little later than the 1st of January then they would not be able to get the matter on the Estimates, and they might have to wait for another 12 or 14 months. Therefore, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to endeavour to frame his letter in time, so that they might get the question on next year's Estimates. The second question he wished to ask was whether the right hon. Gentleman would again bring this matter before the attention of the National Board, and whether they would abide by the decision of the majority of the Board?

Resolution agreed to.