§ 3. £539,969, to complete the sum for Public Education, Ireland.
§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)said, that some time ago he put a question to the Chief Secretary in regard to the introduction into the National Education of Ireland of the revised edition of the Fifth Reading Book, and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give some information, which, however, was not of a very extensive character. He supposed that that was not so much the right hon. Gentleman's own fault as the fault of the Commissioners of National Education, who, he had no doubt, were not too ready to illumine the dark corners in which they had produced this extraordinary book. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he had entirely defended the National Board, and entirely established the reputation and character of the book, by stating that the draft of it had been submitted to the mixed Committee of the Commissioners, which consisted of four Protestants and two Roman Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman might have been literally correct in saying that the mixed Committee were 1330 unanimous in their approval of the revised publication. No doubt, the question of recommending the revised edition was carried unanimously; but it was entirely erroneous to say that the changes made in the revised edition met with the unanimous approval of all the Commissioners. As a matter of fact, he was aware that several most important changes were made against the strong protest of more than one of the Commissioners. But he desired to state that his objections to the changes which had been made were not at all based upon religious grounds. He objected to the book, not because he believed that the old book was a perfect book, or even reasonably good, but on the ground that it was not only no improvement on the old book, but exaggerated most of the defects which that Fifth Book contained, and it was the most recent example of the utter incapacity of the Commissioners to carry out their duties. He was quite aware that the Commissioners of Education did not lie upon a bed of roses; but he had no great respect for the methods that were adopted by them in country districts in Ireland. There were three classes into which the Commissioners could be divided: First, the pure officials of the Board; with them he always found it absolutely hopeless to do anything. Then there were the ex officies of the Board, who were in an equally hopeless condition; and then there was a body of gentlemen only one or two of whom he could say had any distinctive right to be on the Board, and the rest knew very little about education. This book had been trumpeted about as being a remarkable example of the capacity of the Commissioners of National Education. First, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could give him any further information as to who was the person who actually compiled this Reading Book, because the Committee of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke had nothing to do with the compilation of it; a revised draft was submitted to them, and they apparently pronounced a valuable judgment on the whole of it. He asked who was the gentleman who compiled it, because one of the papers connected with education in Ireland, The Education Gazette, a paper of rather a remarkable character, spoke of the one gentleman who 1331 compiled it, whilst one of the other papers spoke of a great number of persons; and he should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell him, if he could, who was the person, or who were the persons; how long they were engaged on this very important duty, and whether these people, when compiling the new Fifth Reading Book, had before them reading books for similar classes of children in England and Scotland? Now, the great complaint which had been urged by those who were interested in education against the old Fifth Beading Book was that it was not suitable for the children for whom it was intended; that most of the extracts in it were stilted; that they were beyond the comprehension of the children, or some of them; that they were not the best examples of English prose which could have been selected; and, besides that, many of the subjects which they dealt with were perfectly useless to the great majority of the children who were obliged to peruse them in school. This book was supposed to be an improvement on the old Fifth Reading Book; and, in the first place, he wanted to say a word or two upon its purely literary character. What was the index like? The old Fifth Reading Book had an index which was of some use; it was alphabetical, and, on turning to it, they could find the extracts they wanted to call attention to; and, in fact, it was a fairly good teacher. The new Fifth Reading Book had no index at all; it had simply a table of contents, which was of no assistance in finding any particular passage, and the only object that he could see for its introduction was to make it more difficult for teachers to find what they wanted. Then, what was the character of the passages omitted, and what were the new passages that were inserted? One of the new passages that had been inserted in place of those thrown out seemed to him to be an eloquent passage from a distinguished ecclesiastic; but the grammar seemed to be somewhat involved, and would require a good deal of explanation. It was an extract from a sermon of Cardinal Wiseman, and was t6 be found on page 275. He wished to go on to the question of the omissions. The first remarkable omission in the new book was the article on the British Constitution.
§ MR. SEXTONHear, hear!
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he did not expect the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) would have much sympathy with it.
§ MR. SEXTONNot with such an article as that.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary if he had taken the trouble to read the three articles on the British Constitution in the Old Fifth Book? He (Mr. Macartney) had read them, and they seemed to him to be very simple, and not to contain any controversial matter whatever; and the only part in which they were not up to date was as to the right of Peers to vote by proxy. He should like to ask what were the passages containing any controversial matter which were in the slightest degree objectionable? He supposed the hon. Member for North Kerry was one of those people who would agree with The Education Gazette in Ireland, which spoke of this as "the dim memory of Archbishop Whately."
§ MR. SEXTONMy view is that, in many respects, they were inaccurate, and in others quite out of date.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he did not see any special case in which they were out of date, except in regard to Peers voting by proxy. Archbishop Whately had always been the bête noir of a particular class of Commissioners on the National Board of Education; he was the one person connected with the national education of Ireland whose work and influence it had been the constant endeavour of one class of ecclesiastics in Ireland to undermine; and he had no doubt they were glad to take an early opportunity of getting rid of the most obnoxious article, to them, which appeared in the reading books of the Board of National Education. But supposing there were in these articles passages of a highly objectionable character that presented a wrong view of the British Constitution, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman why the National Board did not employ some competent person—his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Gibson Bowles) suggested the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Bryce)—to write an article to take its place? The Chancellor of the Duchy was a great authority on Constitutional Law, and he would 1333 probably be able to draw up for the National school system in Ireland a very admirable article on the British Constitution. But he must remind the right hon. Gentleman the answer he gave in regard to this particular article was not that there was anything objectionable in it, not that it was out of date, or that it conveyed a wrong impression of the British Constitution, but that it was considered too difficult for the readers. He (Mr. Macartney) happened to be connected with a good many schools, not in one county only, and he was bound to say he never heard a statement which from his experience appeared more absolutely devoid of any foundation, or more absurd than that they were outside the limit of the comprehension of those pupils of the class for whom they were intended. But what made it more extraordinary was that these pupils who were not supposed to be able to understand the articles on the British Constitution in the old Fifth Reading Book were supposed to be capable of understanding an article by the Right Rev. Monsignor Molloy upon "The Philosophy of the Candle." The Irish pupil who used that book, and who was supposed to be densely stupid that he could not understand Archbishop Whately's article on the Constitution, was supposed to be able to grasp that on "The Philosophy of the Candle." He would give one example. In the beginning of the article there was a head-note to explain to this child, who could not understand Archbishop Whately, what capillary attraction was. The writer said—
Capillary attraction is the name given to the property which lodes possess of rising their level in cubes.If the right hon. Gentleman could find a person in any of the classes, who used that Reading Book in the rural districts, who would read that through, and then tell him what capillary attraction was, and, at the same time, was incompetent to understand the article on the British Constitution, the right hon. Gentleman would have made out a considerable case for the new Reading Book. But, apart from that article on "The Philosophy of the Candle," there were two or three other articles on electric lighting by the same right rev. writer. He did not deny that Monsignor Molloy was 1334 well up in his subject; he was not at tacking the article on that ground; he attacked it because it was absurd to suppose that these children should understand elaborate articles upon electric lighting. He did not believe that, in the rural districts in Ireland, there was a single master in the first or second class—and certainly not in the third class—who would understand these articles on electric lighting.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, trained masters; and perhaps he knew more of the schools and the masters than the hon. Member. And, besides, what good would it do the children in the rural districts of Ireland to cram their heads with learning about batteries and other things that they would not see and could not have before them for explanation? It was perfectly preposterous to suppose these children would have any idea of what electric lighting was. He was bound to say he thought the right hon. Gentleman, or rather the Commissioners, would have very great difficulty in supporting their contention that they had a right to exclude the article on the British Constitution because it was too difficult for the children, and, at the same time, include the very highly scientific articles on electric lighting, and the one on "The Philosophy of the Candle." That was the first of the omissions, and on that he would only say it took place coincident with the introduction of a Bill that was to do away with the British Constitution. He supposed the majority of the National Board of Education thought it was useless to instruct the children of Ireland as to the Constitution under which their forefathers had been brought up. He now took the second class of omissions—the articles on Political Economy by the same author, Archbishop Whately. He was willing to admit there were some themes of political economy on which there were some conflicting views, and that some of the articles in the old Fifth Book were too far advanced for the children for whom that reading book was intended. He was also perfectly ready to admit they contained matters of a highly controversial character; at all events, they contained propositions of political economy that 1335 were not recognised either by the Leaders of one political Party in Ireland, or by the heads of one particular Church; and, therefore, he did not object to their doing what they could to strike these articles out. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that not many years ago Archbishop Whately was regarded as a high authority at the University of Oxford; but what he objected to was that the whole of the articles should have been excluded. He could not conceive there would have been the slightest objection to the articles of Archbishop Whately explaining what money was, what exchanges were, what coinage was, and what values were. He did not believe they contained a single statement of a controversial character. If Archbishop Whately's name stank so horribly in the nostrils of so many of the Commissioners in Ireland, if they objected to his name remaining longer in the Fifth Reading Book, they ought to have considered the interest of Ireland, and have engaged some other person who would have replaced these most excellent articles with others of a similar character dealing with matters which he thought it highly important that children should be made acquainted with. The articles dealing with wages and rich and poor he had no doubt were highly objectionable to certain persons in Ireland; and, therefore, he quite admitted there might be some reason for excluding them. For instance, in the article on wages there was a passage that came directly in conflict with the political views of one large class. Archbishop Whately, had condemned in plain terms any industrious farmer being prevented from taking a farm from which another had been put out for mismanagement or non-payment of rent. He quite admitted that was not a passage which a large proportion of the political Leaders of a certain class in Ireland would like to see in one of the reading books in the National schools. There was another passage in which this writer said—
Every man has a right, no doubt, to demand whatever wages he thinks fit, and to refuse to work for less; but it is most unjust and oppressive that he should prevent others from working for whatever wages they choose to accept.And further on, in a chapter on letting and hiring, appeared this, which applied in a most objectionable manner to views prevalent in Ireland— 1336Every man ought to be at liberty to sell, let, or use in the manner he thinks best his house or land, or anything that is his property.He frankly admitted that throughout these articles on the higher themes of political economy there were matters that he and others might find unobjectionable, but which would meet with a certain amount of natural objection on the part of a great number of people in Ireland. He did not object to their being excluded; but he objected to the articles dealing with and explaining what money was, and what value was, being excluded; but still more he objected to the Commissioners not thinking it necessary to replace them by articles of a similar character by some other writer, as these were matters in which the children were certainly capable of being instructed, and which ought to form part of the curriculum of every National school. The right hon. Gentleman, in an answer given to him (Mr. Macartney), attacked the articles on political economy, because, amongst other things, they contained the following:—The effect of fixing a judicial rent would be to leave the farm idle on the landlord's hands.He admitted the objection would have been a good one if Archbishop Whately ever wrote those words, or if they were to be found in any portion of these articles on political economy. So far as the old Fifth Reading Book was concerned, Archbishop Whately never wrote or said anything of the sort. What he wrote was quite different—namely—If you were to make a law for lowering rents so that the landlord should not be allowed to receive more than so much an acre for it, the only effect of that would be that the landlord would no longer let his land to the farmer, but take it into his own hands, and employ a bailiff to look after it for him.["Hear, hear!"] He supposed the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), who cheered that, would not deny that if that took place and a rent was thus fixed by law, that in nine cases out of ten, if the landlord thought he could make more out of it, he would naturally farm it himself, and that was all that Archbishop Whately said. That passage was written long before there was any idea of the land legislation that had taken place; but, at all events, there should not be imputed to him any doctrine of political economy that he himself did not hold, and 1337 for which no fragment of evidence could be found in his writings. There was one other point in connection with these omissions on which he wished to comment. There were originally in the old Fifth Book eight articles on Scripture history; but, for some reason he was not able to understand, only three had been retained, and five had been omitted. They seemed all very much on the same score, and of the same character—The journeying of the Israelites; Settlement in the Holy Land; The Hebrew Commonwealth; Government by Judges; History of the Israelites from the Establishment of the Monarchy until the Revolt of the Ten Tribes; From the Revolt of the Ten Tribes until the Captivity; From the Restoration of the Jews until the Birth of Christ; and Jewish Festivals and Ordinances.The journeying of the Israelites and the settlement in the Holy Land appeared to the gentleman who compiled the book to be unobjectionable; but, for some reason or other, he had found the articles onthe Hebrew Commonwealth; Government by Judges; the History of the Israelites, from the Establishment of the Monarchy until the Revolt of the Ten Tribes; From the Revolt of the Ten Tribes until the Captivity; and From the Restoration of the Jews until the Birth of Christ,had been excluded; and he should like to know if there was anything contentious in that from a religious point of view? He was trying to find out on what basis the new book was produced by the National Commissioners, and he would like to ask for what reason—whether it was to instruct the children in fishery or to improve their knowledge of English—long extracts from the Report of the Inspectors of the Irish Sea Fisheries had been included? They were very valuable Reports; but he did not think anyone would be prepared to contend that the Report of an Inspector of Fisheries, or, for that matter, of any other Inspector, was the sort of thing to choose as a high standard of English, yet these extracts were copied into the book—full of facts and the names of fish which the children in Ireland never heard of. What he objected to about the book also was that it did not justify the expense which had been incurred in producing it, and that every objection that could be urged against the old book could be urged with ten times greater force against the present reading book. He could only believe 1338 that the book was brought out for the express purpose of excluding the articles on the British Constitution, the articles on political economy, and getting rid of the name of Archbishop Whately altogether. There had been several articles by distinguished Prelates of the Catholic Church; he had not one word to say against the particular extracts from their writings, except that the extract from Cardinal Wiseman seemed to be involved, and not a good example of English grammar, and he expected that the articles on electric lighting and "Philosophy of the Candle" were beyond the class of children for whom the book was intended. The new book did not show any of that elasticity which ought to be a great feature of educational effort in Ireland. For instance, as to the lessons on electric lighting, his opinion was that it might be possible for these lessons to be of use in Dublin and Belfast; but it was perfectly absurd to think that such subjects were likely to be useful, or that the lessons were likely to be taken to heart in the rural districts of Ireland, and equally absurd was it to imagine that extracts from the Sea Fisheries Reports would convey to the children of those districts any information of a useful character. He would content himself with these general observations to show that there was no reason for the production of this new reading book. He did not think it was produced on legitimate grounds, and he thought the Chief Secretary would be disposed to admit that on many grounds it was objectionable.
MR. J. MORLEYI do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understands the position of this question. He speaks of what he calls the objectionable features of the book, and deals with the alterations that have been made as objectionable. He asks me to explain the revision of the book. Well, Sir, I have only to remind him of what I said in answer to a question put to me some time ago. It is not the case that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have introduced alterations into the reading book mainly with the object of displacing from it the name of Archbishop Whately. I would remind the hon. Member that the book was revised and re-arranged by a Committee consisting 1339 of four Protestants and two Catholics—all Commissioners.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he could not accept that statement, because he had the highest authority for saying that the book was compiled before it came before the Committee at all.
MR. J. MORLEYI can quote the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee, which are before me, in support of my statement. I do not want to detain hon. Members, and, referring to the Minutes, I find that considerable discussion and criticism took place on the subject, and that the Committee agreed to the revision without any dissentient. When I stated, in answer to the question put to me, that the Committee were unanimous about the revised book I was technically quite correct—I spoke in accordance with the information supplied to me; but I may say that Dr. Fitzgerald wrote to me to say that, though he did not divide the Committee, and, therefore, in that sense the decision was unanimous, at the same time, as I understood, Dr. Fitzgerald did not entirely approve of the book. Well, Sir, I think it is clear that the book was revised and re-arranged by this Committee of the Commissioners without any idea of disparaging Archbishop Whately, or of pooh-poohing the British Constitution.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLWho were they?
MR. J. MORLEYThey were Sir Patrick Keenan, Dr. Newell, Mr. Morell, Dr. Fitzgerald, and others—a Committee of four Protestants, and, as I have said, two Roman Catholics. It is absurd to say that these changes have been made to pacify the Roman Catholics.
§ MR. MACARTNEYI never said so.
MR. J. MORLEYWhat are the objections to the book? I am not particularly concerned to defend it. I am bound to say that of all the school reading books for children which I have ever seen everyone of them is absurdly overdone—that is to say, they assume a nicety of understanding in the words which we know young people do not possess. But the old book, I must say, seems to me to be undoubtedly less simple than the new one. The hon. Member speaks of the question of electric lighting. He says, I think, that few, either masters or children, in rural districts 1340 would understand this question. And so also with regard to the Sea Fisheries Report, and the extract from it given in the book. Well, Sir, for my part, I would far rather give a child some passages from Fishery Reports to read than the precious article on the British Constitution which appears in the book I hold in my hand. I will just read one or two passages from it, and I would ask the Committee to consider whether they are suitable to children in the rural districts of the West of Ireland. This is what is expected to be of use to those children—I quote from Part Second of the article on "The British Constitution," and the references to the proceedings of the House of Commons—
Every Member is now supplied with a printed copy of the Bill, which he can study at leisure, and the Bill is understood to have been 'read' when the vote for reading it has passed. It is not usual for those who may be opposed to any measure to vote against the First Heading….The Report of a Fishery Committee should surely be of more interest than this. It would be more solid, at any rate. Then the passage goes on to say that the matter may be discussed on the Second Reading. It says—Each clause of the Bill is discussed at the Second Reading and put to the vote separately.Then, again—If any Member has reason to believe that the Business of the House is being improperly hurried on, or brought forward, when the majority of its opponents are absent, he has the privilege of moving an Adjournment; and when a Division has taken place on that question, if there is a majority against adjourning, he or any other Member may soon after move 'That the House do now adjourn,' for, though the same Motion cannot be made twice, it is decided that since the word 'now' denotes a different time, that this is not the same Motion as the other. By persevering in such Motions any one Member may stop the proceedings of the House; but, of course, no one would resort to this extreme step unless strongly impressed with the necessity for it.Does the hon. Member think that it is not better to introduce the Fisheries Report rather than such stuff as that? Why, Sir, any Report of the Fisheries Inspectors would be better. I do not regard this book as at all ideal, and I agree with what I understand to be the view of Dr. Fitzgerald, that it would be better, on the whole, if we had in Ireland the same system which prevailed in England, by which the Board does not itself provide 1341 books, but allow competition, subject to their control and judgment, in the provision of reading books. The argument of the Commissioners is not a bad one as far as it goes—that is, that they are better able to provide the books at a cheaper rate than would otherwise be the case; but my own opinion is in favour of competition as in England. The hon. Member took this opportunity to attack the Commissioners of Education. It appears he has a very poor opinion of that Body.
§ MR. MACARTNEYHear, hear!
MR. J. MORLEYWell, Sir, all I can say is that there is probably no body of gentlemen connected with Ireland who have had so enormously difficult a task to perform as these gentlemen. There is no question so burning, so abounding at every stop with passionate controversy, as the education question, and they have done their work with an amount of success and absence of friction, on the whole, which reflects the greatest credit on their tact and prudence. I regret that the hon. Member has taken this opportunity of saying anything adverse to a Body which does such useful work. Well, Sir, I am not going into the question whether it would not be better if there were an index to the book, nor am I going to defend Cardinal Wiseman's grammar. I think that some of the elementary principles of political economy, such as a definition of money, might be very useful, but I think it is clear that the lessons on political economy introduced by Archbishop Whately in the book are not suited for children. No one has a greater respect than I have for the services of Archbishop Whately to logic and political economy, but I hold that he did not say the last word on either. If Archbishop Whately were alive now he would be the last man to say that he desired that no further light should be thrown on these subjects. Mr. Mellor, I do not think the hon. Member has made out a case—he certainly has not made a serious case—on this question, and I do not think it is necessary for me to say more in reply to his remarks.
§ SIR T. LEAsaid, he wished to draw attention to to the question of the Marl-borough Street Training College, to which education in Ireland owed so much.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ SIR T. LEAsaid, that the Commissioners, in their Report, stated that from 1883 to 1892 no fewer than 12,089 Queen's scholars had undergone courses of training varying from three mouths to two years at this College. That represented a great deal of work, and he regretted to see that the Government pandered to other Training Colleges in Ireland, which received grants at the expense of this Undenominational Training College. Here was a comparative statement of the grants made 10 years ago and those made now. In 1883 the amount granted to Marlborough Street College was £7,833. This year it was £9,421. The grant to St. Patrick's College 10 years ago was £1,644, but was now £8,097; the grant to another College, which in 1883 was £1,520, was now £5,900; the grant to the College of the Church of Ireland, which in 1883 was £1,104, was now £4,653, and another Catholic Training College had been established which received a grant last year for the first time of £1,536. Thus they saw that by far the largest proportion of the increased grants went to the Denominational Training Colleges instead of to the Undenominational Training College in Marlborough Street. Was there any wonder that necessary repairs could not be effected at Marlborough Street, and that the sanitary arrangements there were not up to date? He believed that if ever the youth of the country was to be trained to respect other people's opinions it could only be done by a mixed system of education, such as was given in the Marlborough Street College. There was a tendency for the mixed schools in Ireland to decrease. In 1883 the percentage of schools where there was a mixed attendance of Catholics and Protestants was 52.8. It had then fallen to 52.4; in 1887 it was 49.4, and now it had fallen to the lowest figure—namely, 45'1. Therefore, they saw a regular attack going on not only on the Undenominational Training College in Marlborough Street, but on the mixed school system in Ireland. Only 2.8 of the children were compelled to go into the mixed schools, and the tendency of the prevailing state of things was to drive 1343 the farmer and the farm labourer from districts where the mixed schools at present existed. He knew of a case in which a Presbyterian farmer had sent his two children to a mixed school. They were the only Protestant children there, and the Roman Catholic minister wrote to the agent of the landlord asking that they should be taken away.
§ An hon. MEMBER: Name!
§ SIR T. LEAsaid, he had not got the name with him, but the case was well known at the time, and was an example of what was going on in the South and West of Ireland. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether there had been established of late any new system with regard to religious examinations in schools? He was informed by teachers that religions examinations were conducted during the time allotted to secular education by persons sent round by the Roman Catholic Bishops. In one case that he had been told of, time was not allowed for the Protestant children to leave the school. It was a sort of surprise visit on the part of the Inspector. Manifestly, this was against the intention of the Education Act. He trusted that this sort of thing was a very rare occurrence, and that if it were done it was done without the knowledge of the Department. With regard to the method of selecting gentlemen for the Board of Education, he thought it could be greatly improved. When there was a vacancy it would be well to leave the Board to suggest names for the Government to choose from. He wished to know whether the teachers were satisfied at the increase of salaries they had obtained through the scheme of last year, and he also wished to learn why nothing had been done by the Treasury to provide pensions for the orphans and widows of teachers? A scheme had been proposed, and it was evidently a workable one, or it would not have been proposed by the Irish Office. But year after year went by, and the Treasury did not make a single step towards the settling of the question. Was there any chance of its being settled? The last question he wished to ask was as to school banks. Those who admired thrift were glad that steps had been taken to encourage children to save their coppers. Circulars 1344 had been sent out by the Education Department to the schools suggesting the establishment of this system of school banks. They did not gather from the Report whether any replies had been received, or whether any schools had already started this system. Perhaps the Chief Secretary would tell the Committee how the matter stood.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)said that, with regard to the subject of books, he agreed with the Chief Secretary, and only wished the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to carry his own idea a bit further. He (Mr. Arnold-Forster) could not quite take the view of the hon. Member for South Antrim, who desired that the old form of National Board readers should be re-introduced. He would go further, and say that what he thought the Department required was that there should be opportunity given to dispense altogether with National Board readers, not on account of their being National Board readers, but because it was impossible to get the best kind of educational book constructed on the system on which the National Board readers were constructed. He had a personal interest in the production of school books; but he did not think that that disqualified him from saying a word on the matter. It was a mistake to suppose that the reason why books other than those prescribed by the National Board were not used in Ireland was that there was any prejudice against them on the part of the National Board, or any unwillingness on the part of the managers of schools to use them. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had absolutely laughed out of court the first edition of the National Board's Fifth Reading Book. What made the National Board's books-a monopoly was the fact that they were practically subsidised. Apart altogether from the contents, they were produced in such an inferior style that no publisher in the United Kingdom would offer them as things to be bought on their merits. They were, however, supplied at cost price, with the result that a premium of something like 30 or 40 per cent. was given to them. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley) was sincere, as he was sure he was, in believing that a larger range of books was needed to choose from, he 1345 must make up his mind that the only way of meeting the need was to withdraw the privilege which Irish schools now possessed, of receiving hooks at cost price, and to allow the matter to be settled by the competition of the market. At present nearly the whole of the Irish schools were absolutely shut out from any participation in the advantages which were felt in every school in England and Scotland from the efforts that were being made by publishers to produce good school books.
§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)said, the hon. Baronet the Member for South Londonderry (Sir T. Lea) was certainly a very diligent sentinel in the cause of compulsory education. The hon. Baronet had inquired as to the results so far obtained. As the Act only came into force on the 1st January next year, he thought the hon. Baronet might have waited till next Session before putting his question. So far as he (Mr. Sexton) had heard, satisfactory results could hardly be anticipated. He congratulated the hon. Member on his remarks respecting the constitution of the National Board of Education. That Board, such as it was, was the result of the combined wisdom of successive English Administrations in Ireland. It was comprised of 20 gentlemen, of whom 10 were Catholics and 10 Protestants, and when a vacancy occurred the Lord Lieutenant filled it up. It was strange that so devoted an adherent of the Imperial Government as the hon. Baronet should have failed to approve of the constitution of a Board which had been the outcome of the working of the present system of Government in Ireland. As to the suggestion that Members of Parliament brought their influence to bear upon the Government in reference to appointments to the Board, it was to be supposed that the Members of the hon. Baronet's Party had used their influence with the Government in the past on the subject, and it was no compliment to them if their efforts had produced so bad a result. He (Mr. Sexton) could only say that no pressure had ever been brought to bear on the Government on the subject by the Members of the Nationalist Party, and no advice had ever been asked by any Government from the Members of that Party. He himself was of opinion that it 1346 would be well if the Representatives of Ireland were consulted on a matter which, like this, concerned so nearly the welfare of the country. The hon. Baronet had made a charge with regard to examinations in Catholic schools. He said he had heard from someone or other whom he did not name that in some schools an official, who he thought was an Inspector, came into school during the hours of secular instruction, and examined, or attempted to examine, the children in religious matters.
§ SIR T. LEAsaid, his statement was that he had been informed by the teachers that Inspectors had been going round within the last three or four years with the object of examining children in religious knowledge.
§ MR. SEXTONsubmitted that a charge of that kind should not be made in such a form. Nobody was entitled to enter a school during the hours of secular instruction for the purpose of interfering with such instruction, and it was impossible that such a thing could happen, because there was hung up on the walls of the national schools a time table which separated the secular from the religious instruction. A teacher who allowed the time table to be violated would submit himself to immediate dismissal. As to the mixed schools, there was not the slightest doubt that they had been continually decreasing in numbers for a quarter of a century or more without a break. The decrease was not due to Catholic action only. The unbroken course of experience in Ireland was that as soon as the children of one faith who were in a minority in any school became sufficiently numerous to enable their parents to establish a denominational school they did so, the mixed school being adverse to the genius and sentiment of the people of Ireland, Catholic as well as Protestant. This process had gone on especially in the Province, and even in the county, which the hon. Baronet represented. He did not know whether the hon. Baronet had intended to make an attack on the system of the Training Colleges in Ireland. It ought to be borne in mind by English Members that the whole system of Training Colleges in England was denominational. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that Training Colleges were getting more than fair 1347 play, because, while the official Colleges got £10,000 a year, the other four Colleges divided £27,000 between them. Had the hon. Baronet observed, however, that the official Colleges had an attendance last year of 200 students, while the other Colleges had an attendance of nearly 500 students? When the hon. Baronet attacked the system of Training Colleges, he attacked the policy of his own Party. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Jackson) must be aware that the lack of trained teachers had been one of the main defects, if not the chief defect, of the primary system of education in Ireland. Of 11,000 teachers, only 4,000 were trained, and the inefficiency of the system, so far as it was inefficient, was mainly due to this fact. The former Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour), when he wrote the letter in 1890 in which he declared that the Denominational Colleges should be placed on a level of all-round equality of treatment with the other Colleges, took a step as apt and wise as any that had been taken on the subject of education in our time. Anyone who reflected on the subject would see that, where 11,000 teachers were engaged in a laborious occupation, the waste must be at least £600 a year, so that it was necessary not to contract the system of Training Colleges, but rather to expand it, and to be more liberal rather than less liberal with public money. There was one point on which all-round equality of treatment had not been secured. In a letter to which he had just referred, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) said that one of the points of inequality was that the Marlborough Street College had been not only built, but furnished and equipped, at the expense of the State; and the right hon. Gentleman urged that a grant should be made for the Church of Ireland to cover not only the cost of the building, but the cost of the furniture as well. Marlborough Street College was not only built, but furnished and equipped at the expense of the State; but in the instructions given by the valuation department there was no instruction to take account of the furnishing or equipment of the Denominational College. He would commend that point to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, because he was sure no Member of the 1348 Unionist Party would take exception to the fulfilment of the promise given in 1890. He desired to say a word about books. He seldom had the pleasure of agreeing with the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster). Not only did he agree with him that evening, but he thought, from the hon. Member's position elsewhere, he was entitled to speak with authority on the question. He (Mr. Sexton) did not think he ever opened duller books than the class books of the National Board in Ireland, or books less suited to the peculiar genius of the people of Ireland. A good deal of time was occupied upon that question; but he thought they could very well spare the time occupied by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) in criticising Cardinal Wiseman's grammar, and suggesting that the Committee of the Board of Education—two Presbyterians, two Protestants, and two Roman Catholics—entered into a conspiracy to expunge the wisdom of Archbishop Whately from the new Fifth Reading Book. He thought they were well rewarded by the observations of the Chief Secretary. He put his finger on the truth of the matter when he said the inadequacy and inappropriateness of the class books lay in the fact that they were compiled by officials who had no literary taste, and possibly no great educational skill. In England the supply of class books was thrown open to public competition. He thoroughly agreed with the Chief Secretary that the way to remedy the matter was to bring this monopoly to an end. Although the National Board was independent of the Government, yet he would suggest to the Chief Secretary that he should avail himself of the custom which had prevailed, and communicate with the Board, expressing the view that educational interests only would be benefited if they substituted a public supply of books for the monopoly, and invited the Commissioners to consider the question of placing the system upon a parity with the excellent system which prevailed in England.
§ MR. JACKSONThere are one or two questions I desire to refer to; but before I do so I should like to say I agree with the hon. Member for North Kerry that it would be a great advantage to the Board of Education in Ireland, if it were 1349 possible, to secure a larger supply of trained teachers. I am not sure that his figures are quite right. I think he took rather a sanguine view, unless I read his figures wrongly. He says that, whereas the Training Colleges turned out 100 teachers a year, they now turn out 400—
§ MR. SEXTONI said the official College turned out 100.
§ MR. JACKSONI notice, by the Report of the Commissioners of Education, that of 472 teachers appointed last year only 170 of them were trained.
§ MR. SEXTONThe right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that a good many of those who are trained in the Colleges are already teachers who go up for a short course, and they would not be included among the new teachers.
§ MR. JACKSONQuite so; but the number bears out the proportion. There are 11,000 teachers, and about 4,000 are trained—that is, about one-third; and the number of 170 trained out of 470 is somewhat in the same proportion. There is no doubt it is a very considerable difficulty; and certainly I, for one, should be very sorry to see any other step taken that would tend in any degree to diminish the number of trained teachers available for appointments in the schools in Ireland. I want to ask the Chief Secretary two or three questions. One is a question which, although it may seem to some of minor importance, is one in which I take a special interest, and which I conscientiously believe to be of great importance to Ireland in its material prosperity. It is as to the question of dairy instruction. When I was in Ireland I had the opportunity of visiting a good many of the so-called creameries or butter factories that were being established in Ireland. I had also the opportunity of visiting the agricultural school and farm at Glasnevin, and I took some interest in what was being done in the Munster Dairy School at Youghal. Everyone who has watched the statistics, and has seen the enormous growth of the import of Danish butter into this country, and subsequently the business that is growing up in the importing of butter from New Zealand and Australia, and I believe also from Canada, must recognise that, at all events, there is an enormous demand which has to be supplied. Now, I 1350 believe that there is no country in the world, as far as I am able to judge, which by reason of its grass and the class of its stock is more capable of producing good butter than Ireland; and I think, if I may venture to say so, that it is little short of a disgrace to Ireland that the enormous business which is within their power to carry on successfully has been so long neglected—and neglected, I think, for very insufficient reasons. I was so much impressed by my visit to these creameries that I was really very keen to do everything I could in order to provide the necessary instruction and training to enable these people to compete with other countries. I came to this conclusion—that, both from the economic point of view and the question of improving the standard quality of the butter, these creameries and butter factories are extremely valuable. I am sorry the hon. Member for South Dublin (Mr. H. Plunkett) is not here, because he has taken not only a great personal and intelligent interest in this question, but has backed it both by his brains and money. I see by the Report of the National Education Commissioners that the Government have authorised—and arrangements have been made for—the employment of, I presume, a competent instructor who shall go about the country, and shall endeavour by practical lessons to teach the people what it is that is required, and to enable them to improve the quality of their supply and the method of their manufacture; and I shall be glad if the Chief Secretary can give us a little information beyond that contained in the Report of the National Education Commissioners. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us exactly how the matter stands—whether such an instructor has been appointed, what work he has done, and what view the Chief Secretary takes generally of the possibilities of the future of this great industry? Another question I wanted to ask was with reference to the Education Act that was passed last year. The remarks of the hon. Member for North Kerry rather emphasised what was in my mind, and I confess to a feeling of extreme regret on hearing him give utterance to the expression of his opinion that, as regards the Compulsory Clauses of the Education Act, he looks forward with no great 1351 hope to their having any satisfactory result. [Mr. SEXTON: As matters now stand.] I do not, of course, know what the matters are to which the hon. Member refers; but the question, in my opinion, is one of such consequence to the people of Ireland that I confess I am amazed at an hon. Member who takes so much interest in everything that relates to Ireland speaking in this strain. I do not know what the difficulties are; but I venture to say the question is one which ought to be entirely apart from both religion and Party politics. The question of the education of the children of Ireland is one which certainly ought to be removed from the sphere of either Party politics or religious differences. The Committee are aware that what are called the Compulsory Clauses—but what I call the powers which provide that School Attendance Committees shall be provided in Ireland—are intended to come into operation on the 1st January, 1894. I do not think anyone who knows anything of Ireland, who has travelled in Ireland, or who has watched the course of the Reports published by the National Education Commissioners, can have the smallest hesitation or doubt in his mind that there is a very large proportion of the population of children of school age who at present will not attend or give average attendance in schools in Ireland. I venture to say that the last Report of the National Commissioners of Education, which shows that the average attendance had fallen from the previous year, is one which gives reason to many people for great anxiety as regards the future of the education of the children of -Ireland. For the year 1891 there had been a slight increase in the number of Children who attended school, and a slight increase in the percentage of the average attendance. In the year 1892, not with standing that during that year additional facilities and inducements were provided not only to the teachers, but to the parents of the children in Ireland to send their children to school, we see that the average attendance has fallen off. It has not fallen off very much; but, still, I confess I had been sanguine enough to hope that the result of that Act and of what was done by the late Government in the cause of education in Ireland in providing the additional sums of money which enabled the schools practically to 1352 be made free would have resulted in a large increase in the average attendance. That has not been so, and I venture to say to the Committee that anybody who walks through the streets of Dublin or Cork, or any other large towns or cities in Ireland, and notices the very large number of children that are to be seen the whole day long, must feel that these children would be very much better if they were brought into attendance at school. I would say that if Clause 3 of the Education Act of 1891 is to come into operation on January 1, 1894, it is now time that the Chief Secretary was in a position to give information as to how that power is going to be exercised, and in what spirit it is going to be received by those who are responsible for education in Ireland. The School Attendance Committees will have to be appointed. If the Local Authority, to whom is entrusted the duty in the first instance, fails in its duty, provision is made that the Board of Education are to take the matter in hand. I confess I attach enormous importance to the question of extending education to all the children in Ireland. I am convinced that the average attendance can be, and ought to be, raised by at least 10 per cent., and anyone who places an obstacle in the way of that desirable result, I think, can hardly pose as a friend of Ireland in any respect. I hope, therefore, the Chief Secretary will be able to give the Committee some information as to what he has done and what he proposes to do, and, if he can, that he will give us any information as to his anticipation of the spirit in which this Act is intended to be worked, and in which it will be received by those who are responsible for education in Ireland. I have only one other question to ask, but it is of some importance, and I hope the Chief Secretary may be able to give us some information upon it. Last year a very important question was raised as to the position of the Teachers' Pension Fund in Ireland. At that time the Treasury thought it right to recommend and Parliament to adopt the suggestion that a considerable sum should be applied in aid of teachers' pensions. It was then expected there had been some mistake made which had resulted during the past years in placing the position of the Teachers' Pension Fund in a position of 1353 some difficulty, and giving cause for anxiety. The Treasury made a promise that they would consider the question, and I think the Government are under the same obligation to the House to give information on this subject as soon as they are in a position to make up their mind as to what the exact position of the fund is according to their re-examination and very careful consideration of the question. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to give the Committee some information as regards the real position of the Fund, and whether the Government propose to take any steps in order to place the Fund upon a satisfactory basis? More than 12 months have elapsed since this question was first raised in the House, and I think it would be a satisfaction to the very large number of persons who are interested in this Fund, and satisfactory to Members of the Committee, who are also interested in the financial position of the Fund, if the Chief Secretary is able to give us any additional information.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Jackson) had raised two of the questions that he had intended to ask some information about. He had intended to ask for information as to the formation of the School Attendance Committees, and also concerning the Teachers' Pension Fund. Both of these questions having been dealt with, it was not necessary to refer to them at any length. He was not now going to discuss the principle of Denominational Training Colleges. He did not believe in the wisdom of doing that. He and his friends fought that battle at the proper time, and they were badly beaten. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for North Kerry coalesced, and he (Mr. Russell) and his friends were utterly routed and defeated; and he was not going back to fight that question of principle. But they had a right to ask what the victory had cost? Denominational Training Colleges had been opened, handsomely endowed by the State, and he should like the Chief Secretary to tell them what denominationalism was costing the country. There was another matter referred to by the hon. Member for North Kerry. That hon. Member had made another claim to-night, which, however, he was bound to say he made 1354 at the time this question was before the House on the previous occasion, and that was as to furnishing the College. All he had got to say was that they need not make two bites at a cherry, and there was no use in their building a College, unless they were going to furnish it. So far as he was concerned, he had to say that the principle having been conceded, and the hon. Member for North Kerry having won all along the line, they ought not to stick at furnishing. But he did want to know—and he thought the country ought to know—what this step in denominationalism had actually cost in hard cash? He thought it would have run up to £80,000, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give them some information on the point. The Denominational Colleges had been so well done for that he wanted the Chief Secretary to do a little for a College for which, after all, the National Board of Education was responsible. He meant the College attached to the National Board itself in Marlborough Street. They had built these Colleges for the denominationalists, and in what kind of a condition was the Undenominational College in Marlborough Street? He lately walked through that College, spending a couple of hours in it, and all he could say was that it was not creditable to the National Board of Education, and not creditable to the Government which allowed it. The Government had done a great deal for the denominationalists, and they ought to give some little attention to the oldest College, and the one which had done most for training teachers for the national system. The sanitary condition of the College was dangerous to health.
§ MR. SEXTONThen what are the Board of Works doing to let it go like that?
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLWhat they were always doing. In the presence of one of the Commissioners, the smoke test was applied to the drains, and it proved to demonstration that the place was in such an insanitary condition as to be dangerous to life and health. Yet here, in Talbot Street, were 100 young women brought up from the country parts of Ireland to breathe this atmosphere. Whilst they were endowing and building Denominational Colleges at a cost of £80,000, their own College was 1355 not in a fit state for human beings to live in. That was an abominable state of affairs, and one which ought to be rectified. The building was very unsuitable for its purpose. What was called the Ladies' College was an old house in Talbot Street, and what was called the Men's College was a still older house in North Great George Street. What was the arrangement? This was a mixed College, attended by Roman Catholics, Protestants, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists. He was happy to say the denominationalists had not been able to break it up entirely. [Mr. SEXTON: We do not want to.] In the house where the men lived there would be a room where probably 20 young men slept. At very slight cost cubicles might be put up, and the bed space fairly enlarged. The beds would then be separated, and there would be some kind of privacy for those inhabiting the place. There was now nothing of the kind—the place was in an insanitary condition. The Commissioners did nothing for it, and did not seem to care whether the College was broken up or not. He knew that, so far as Training Colleges were concerned, it must come to denominationalism in the end; but so long as the College was maintained and the Commissioners were responsible for it they should keep it in a sanitary state. He hoped the Chief Secretary would see that attention was paid to this matter. He would like to know whether the Commissioners were in communication with the Local Authorities in the various towns with a view to the formation of the School Attendance Committees under the Compulsory Education Act, which would come into operation at the beginning of next year. They had not heard anything about the Christian Brothers. That was the first time the Irish Education Vote had been allowed to pass without some reference to the Christian Brothers.
§ MR. SEXTONI referred to them. I think I indicated plainly enough the probable result on compulsion of excluding them from the benefits of these grants.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he took in the remarks of the hon. Member for Kerry completely; but he was not quite sure that all the Committee understood 1356 them as fully as he did. [Laughter.] That was not a reflection on the Committee. It could not be expected that other Members would understand everything about the affairs of Ireland as well as the Irish Members did. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary how the question of the Christian Brothers stood? Had any advances been made to the Christian Brothers by the Board of Education since the Debate on the subject at the commencement of the Session, or did the Government intend to make any proposal? The matter was serious so far as compulsion was concerned, and he desired a rational settlement of the question. With regard to the question of appointing Commissioners, he thought the hon. Member for North Kerry was too severe on his hon. Friend the Member for South Derry. It was quite possible that the system of appointing members of the National Board of Education might have been very good in the past, and yet be capable of improvement. He thought the system of appointing members of the Board might be improved, at any rate, so far as the Episcopalians in the North of Ireland were concerned, for their representatives were all Dublin men. Therefore they did not get in those gentlemen, however able and impartial they might be, a reflection of the opinions of the Episcopalians of Ulster on these questions. As to the mixed schools, the percentage of those schools in Ulster was 60 per cent. The hon. Member for North Kerry had stated that the unmixed schools had increased five-fold within the last 30 years. One reason of the retrogression towards unmixed schools—for he considered it a retrograde movement—was that at the time of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church a large number of Church schools, which were naturally denominational, passed under the Board. But the real reason why the unmixed schools had increased so greatly in recent years was because the Board of Education had been prevailed upon by Episcopalian and Roman Catholic clerics to make grants to schools with the minimum attendance of 15, although those schools could not possibly give the same education that the larger schools gave. He thought that, on the whole, the Board had done their work—and it had been difficult work—fairly well. He did not desire to impede 1357 the Commissioners. He simply wanted information.
MR. J. MORLEYThe discussion has ranged over a very wide space, and I do not propose to follow it in detail. The hon. Member for South Tyrone made a remark of a rather disparaging character on the deliberations of the Committee. It was a very significant remark in view of larger issues. He said that not a half-a-dozen Members of the Committee understood this question.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLWhat I said was that in a mere matter of local concern like education, Members of the Committee could not be expected to know as much as the Irish Members.
MR. J. MORLEYThe hon. Member for South Tyrone now refers to the question of education as a local concern. If there is one subject that goes deeper down into the roots of Irish national life it is the question of education; and the hon. Member, who is a strenuous Unionist, says that this Committee is not competent to deal with the question, or to give the necessary attention to the matter. Of course, we knew that all the time; but it is rather interesting to have a strong Unionist like the hon. Member admit it. I will endeavour first to answer the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in the Office of Chief Secretary with regard to the question of dairy instruction. An experienced Dairy Instructor is now employed. He began his work in April, and from that time has engaged in the inspection and organisation of creameries and dairy classes, and in giving practical instructions in all the arts connected with the manufacture of butter. Thirty-five creameries have been visited in different parts of Ireland, and a course of lectures has been delivered on butter and cheese-making, as well as on other branches of the industry. The Instructor works under the guidance of Mr. Caroll, the head of the Glasnevin School, and everything is being done in the manner the right hon. Gentleman himself would desire. The right hon. Gentleman raised a more important question when he asked what has been done in the matter of compulsory education. The Commissioners, in compliance with the Act of 1892, have communicated with the clerks of 118 Municipal towns and townships, asking 1358 what steps are being taken to comply with the Act. The great experiment of compulsory education is also to be tried in Ireland, and it was well to know how it was going to be received. The Corporate Bodies were a little tardy in making reply. To most of the bodies the Commissioners had to send two reminders, and even now 17 out of 118 have maintained a rather awkward silence, including Waterford, Kilkenny, Drogheda, Ballinasloe, and other places Of the 101 who have replied, 81 might be regarded as prepared to comply with the requirements of the Act. I do not say that that is perfectly satisfactory, but it is hopeful in such a novel experiment. In 12 cases the authorities declare hostility to the Act because of the non-participation of the Christian Brothers' Schools in the pecuniary advantages of the Act. The Committee, however, are aware that incase the Local Authority declines to exercise the powers conferred by the Act, the Commissioners exercise that power themselves. There is, however, one hitch likely to occur in the matter of the Attendance Committees. Some very important Prelates of the Catholic Church have decided against the nomination of priests, even though they are managers of schools, as members of Attendance Committees. They probably object to the spiritual influence of the clergy being exercised in antagonism to parents and heads of families in the matter of compulsory attendance of children at school. That, of course, is a matter for them to decide. I desire to answer fully the right hon. Gentleman's question on this important matter, and to point out that there may be difficulties in this question of the Attendance Committees. I do not think I can now enter into the history of the Teachers' Pension Fund. An inquiry has been held by experts at the Treasury into the position of this fund. The report as far as it has gone is apparently rather obscure and not too satisfactory; and the position of the fund is such that the Treasury desire a further opportunity of considering how the matter stands. Then the hon. Member for South Tyrone asked what has been the cost to the Government of providing funds for the Training Colleges. I have not the figures as to funds for Training Colleges, but I will take care that they are provided for the informa- 1359 tion of the hon. Member. The report from the medical officer as to the sanitary condition of Marlborough Street Training College is far from confirming the alarmist apprehensions of the hon. Member. The medical officer states that last winter and spring were the healthiest recorded during his long service. There had not been a single case of typhoid fever, and on the 9th of June the institution was in a very satisfactory condition in the matter of sanitation.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLThe smoke test applied to the drains showed otherwise, and there were Commissioners present on the occasion.
MR. J. MORLEYI have no information on the subject of the smoke test. I can only give the Report of the medical officer of the College; but I may say that I will be in Dublin very soon, and I will see with my own eyes the smoke test applied. I next turn to that most difficult question—the participation of the Christian Brothers in the public grants. I am asked how that matter stands. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for South Tyrone saying—speaking, I presume, for the Presbyterians—that he will not object to a rational and reasonable proposal in this matter. That will shed a good deal of light on our path. Since the repulse of the proposal made by the Commissioners to the Christian Brothers last winter there has been a pause, and the anticipations of those concerned in the matter are not very sanguine as to any proposal which will reconcile the conflicting interests which come into play in this difficult and thorny matter. The hon. Member for South Tyrone who raised this question knows the position I have taken up on this question; but, at the same time, I am of opinion that any Government will be landed in considerable difficulties when compulsion comes into force next January, unless arrangements can be made by which the excellent Christian Brothers' Schools—for it is admitted on all sides that they are excellent—can be brought into line with the national system. I can say nothing positive at the present moment, but the subject is one which must engage my attention during the Vacation, and I shall be glad at some later period in the Session or next Session to give a more definite answer upon the subject. 1360 Another important question is the position and composition of the Board of National Education. I agree that the position of the Board is anomalous. Like other Boards in Ireland, it is semi-independent, though it owes a certain responsibility to, and is in certain connection and relation with, the Central Executive Government. These relations are unsatisfactory, but I will stand by what I have said as to the value of the Board, and what Ireland and the Government owes to them. The present, however, is not the moment to raise a question of this kind. It has been absorbed in a large question. But if the Commission is to go on and the system remain as it is, there must be greater regard paid than has been hitherto to the wishes of the different religious denominations in Ireland. The only other question, I think, is the question of the Teachers Widows' and Orphans' Fund. There is a scheme now under the consideration of the Treasury; negotiations are still going on between the Government and the Treasury, and I hope some satisfactory way out of the difficulty will be obtained.
§ MR. SEXTONThere is the question of the book monopoly?
MR. J. MORLEYI have expressed my views on that matter in my reply to the Member for South Antrim. As my hon. Friend is aware, the power of the Government and the Chief Secretary over the Commission is obscure, ambiguous, and doubtful; but I will do all I can to make my views prevail.
§ MR. WOLFF (Belfast, E.)said, he did not intend to enter on the merits of the suggested compromise with the Christian Brothers; but he asked that the House should have the opportunity of discussing any scheme which the Commissioners might formulate in the matter. He understood that the Commissioners, in order to end the difficulty, wore inclined to alter the whole system of secular and undenominational education in Ireland which had been founded by Act of Parliament. He would not say whether it would be right or wrong to put the schools of the Christian Brothers on the same footing as the National Schools; but he thought the House should be allowed to express its opinion on any such proposal before it was carried into effect. If the right hon. Gentleman 1361 contemplated such change would he give the House an opportunity of discussing it?
§ SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)asked whether the representatives of the authorities of the cities of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork were favourable to the system of compulsory education, and would assist in carrying it out?
§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)said, the National Board of Education had been secular and undenominational, but what it was at present he could not say. As far as he could judge it was fairly denominational, thoroughly protected by the Conscience Clause, and that was the character of the national system in Ireland at the present moment. He voted for the Presbyterians having every possible facility for their education, and the Catholics ought to be in the same position. The Chief Secretary, in answer to the Member for North Kerry, seemed to be very guarded in his declarations about the Christian Brothers. In February, or March, or April, the right hon. Gentleman gave a much less guarded answer. There had been a painful split in the Irish Party, but that did not extend to the Christian Brothers, and they were all anxious that this deserving body should be placed on a proper footing. No one had benefited education more than they. They had established a system of primary education which was so good that some people called the Christian Brothers' schools secondary schools. The Christian Brothers had no endowments, and very little private means, and they were supported by the subscriptions of the people of Ireland, among whom there was a general desire that the Christian Brothers should be included in the Government grants. Because they put up certain emblems in their schools they were precluded from coming under the Rules of the National Board and from any participation in the grants of education. He understood that in February or March, or perhaps it was April, the Chief Secre- 1362 tary gave a decided pledge that a sum for the Christian Brothers would be put on the Estimates for the present year. [Mr. J. MORLEY: No, no!] He was very sorry to hear that was to be softened down, and he hoped the Government would adhere to their clear and distinct promise. There was no question that the Christian Brothers gave an excellent education to the children, and if their claim was satisfied the Protestants would be in no worse position. The Christian Brothers did all they could not to tamper with the faith of Protestant children, and in any case where Protestant children attended their schools they would give a pledge that their faith would not be tampered with in any way. It was very hard upon the Catholic people that they should not only have to pay taxes for the National schools, but should also then have to pay for the Christian Brothers' schools, because the latter got no State assistance. He contended that the Christian Brothers were fully entitled to participate in the advantages of the Government grants, and they were willing to submit to any educational test. The hon. and gallant Gentleman repeated that, so far as his recollection served him, the Chief Secretary, on a. previous occasion, clearly and distinctly promised that on the Estimates for 1894 he would put down a grant for the Christian Brothers.
MR. J. MORLEYThe hon. Baronet (Sir F. S. Powell) asks me whether the answers from the Local Authorities are from rural or urban districts. The hon. Baronet has forgotten the fact that the compulsion in the Act of 1892 only applies in areas under the control of Town Commissioners.
§ SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, his question was especially directed to the three important cities of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork.
MR. J. MORLEYI have not got the figures here, but I will communicate with the hon. Baronet. In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan), I can only say that he certainly hardens and stiffens very much the answer I gave in February, or March, or April. I certainly never said that I in- 1363 tended in the Estimates for 1894 to put a Vote upon those Estimates for the Christian Brothers' schools. What I said was that I should be glad, and I felt it almost a stringent necessity, if some effort should be devised to bring the Christian Brothers' schools into the conditions in which they could participate in the grants made to schools. That was all I said, and by that I stand.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, if the Chief Secretary thought he had hardened and stiffened his answer, the right hon. Gentleman had certainly softened it, and left out that most important part, the date, which was a very serious point indeed.
§ MR. SEXTONI think after the grave declarations which the Chief Secretary has made in reference to the Municipal Authorities I cannot remain silent. He has told us that 17 of the Municipal Authorities have declined to send any reply, and that as many as 12 have made hostile declarations, and amongst these are some of the most important in the country. I do not think I ought to conceal from the Committee my conviction that unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to arrange with the National Board some mode of introducing the Christian Brothers into the primary system of education the Act will break down. Of course, in those towns where the Municipal Authorities refuse to act, although the Educational Commissioners can appoint a School Attendance Committee, and although the School Attendance Committee can appoint officers, and the Educational Commissioners can approve of the appointment and fix the salaries in default of the Local Authority, yet it is only the Local Authority who can pay the officers. The Educational Commissioners cannot levy a rate, nor collect it, nor apply a rate in payment of the officers, and, even where the Municipal Authority acts, if there be Catholic boys on the one side with only the Christian Brothers' school, and on the other side a school managed by Protestants, and if in a case where the Catholic boy is absent from school the father declines to send him to the Protestant School, and declines to send him to the Christain Brothers' 1364 school because he cannot pay for him, you having established free education, I say it is impossible for the Magistrates in any part of Ireland to punish the father or compel the child to go to school. I shall await with the keenest interest the result of the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as to the advisability of devising some means of introducing these excellent primary schools into the system of the State, and if some mode is not devised we shall be obliged to take such action as we think necessary during the Winter Sittings of the House.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 4. £3,048, to complete the sum for Queen's College, Ireland.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he had intended to raise a question upon this Vote. He recognised, however, that the last Vote had occupied a great deal of time, and he should have some other opportunity of raising the question.
§ MR. SEXTONWe also shall have something to say later on. All I will say now is that our silence is not to be taken for consent.
§ Vote agreed to.