CLASS IV. (Hansard, 20 August 1894)

COLONEL NOLAN
said, he would like to call attention to the fact that the Christian Brothers did not get any money for their schools.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that this was a Vote for endowed schools, and not of education generally. The whole sum proposed to be taken was only £605.

COLONEL NOLAN
Then I think I shall be right in moving a reduction of £600. I would like to point out that education generally in Ireland—

THE CHAIRMAN
That will not arise on this Vote. This is only a Vote for the Endowed Schools Commissioners in Ireland.

COLONEL NOLAN
said, he should then object to the Endowed Schools Commissioners. He considered that endowed education in Ireland was not managed in a spirit of fairness and equity. He thought it would be a good plan to abolish most Education Commissioners in Ireland, and particularly the Commissioners for endowed education. A great deal of money would be saved by adopting such a course. As a general rule only Protestant headmasters were appointed to endowed schools, and consequently nobody but Protestants attended the schools. After some movement in this matter by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington there were one or two Catholics appointed as headmasters, and he believed the experiment was successful. The Protestants did not fall off, and the Catholics came to the schools in tolerable numbers. This was a policy which he earnestly recommended to the attention of the Chief Secretary, and it was one which, he regretted to say, was not followed out to any extent in Ireland. The general policy of education in that county—except in the primary schools— was to give the whole of the endowments in such a manner that, although they were nominally open to all, it was only Protestants that could avail themselves of them. He acknowledged that primary schools, so far as religion was concerned, were managed with tolerable fairness, but the moment they went above the primary to the endowed schools, they found that the endowments were administered so as to be exclusively in favour of the Protestants. Having made his protest, and having regard to the fact that there were so few Members present, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.

§ MR. WEBB (Waterford, W.)
said, he understood that any portion of the sum of £1,000 for the purchase of pictures if not used in one year had to be returned to the Treasury, and the result was that if a picture worth £1,500 was available for purchase 75 for the Gallery it could not be bought, for the simple reason that no balance could be held over to add to the next year's grant. He believed that money could be held over in the National Gallery in London, and he asked that the same rule should be applied to Ireland.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, he would explain how the matter really stood. Unfortunately, in Ireland, no bequests were made to the National Gallery, as in England. Therefore, the money granted yearly was to maintain the Institution, given as a "grant in aid," and carried over from one year to another. The Trustees of the Irish National Gallery were allowed to purchase pictures of the value of £1,500 a year—£1,000 to be paid in one year and £500 in the next. No money was paid back into the Exchequer, and if bequests were made to the institution the difficulty would be got over, and the National Gallery in Ireland could be treated in the same way as the National Gallery in England. Personally he was in favour of such a plan, if it could be adopted.

§ MR. WEBB
said, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was satisfactory.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS
desired to know how it was that £1,030 was paid in wages and salaries for eight people in connection with this Museum? Out of that the Director got £500, which was a proportionately large salary compared with the others, whilst he also had an allowance of £150 a year for travelling expenses. In what was that money spent?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
replied that the Director had to travel about to see pictures which were offered for sale, and this, of course, entailed considerable expense. That was the only explanation he could give, but if the hon. Member desired it, he would endeavour to obtain further information by the time the Report stage was reached.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS
would feel obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would do so. There was only £1,000 a year to spend on pictures, and yet the Director got a salary of £500 with £150 for travelling expenses for looking after pictures on which this large expense was incurred. As compared with the National Gallery here, this expense was disproportionate.

MR. J. MORLEY
said, he wished to recognise the excellent work accomplished by the National Gallery in Dublin. With a modest allowance of £1,000 a year, they had got together a most interesting and valuable collection. The results obtained there showed what could be done with a small sum of money, provided that a good Director was secured. The Gallery was, in fact, a model and a most excellent democratic Picture Gallery.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS
said, the right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstood his point. The fault he found was not with the Gallery, nor the money spent in improving it; but when £1,000 was voted for the purpose of buying pictures, it would strike anyone as curious that £150 should be spent in railway fares. He thought the Dublin Gallery might get many of the pictures from the National Gallery that were now in the basement of that Institution unseen by anyone; and £100 might be saved from travelling expenses and spent on better pictures.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, that 20 pictures of various kinds were bought for the Irish Gallery last year; and that necessitated a considerable amount of travelling, not only in England, but abroad.

COLONEL NOLAN
said, the Chief Secretary had described the Gallery in Dublin as a democratic Picture Gallery. He did not know what a democratic Picture Gallery was; but he preferred an artistic Picture Gallery. The total amount voted for the National Gallery in Dublin was £2,500, which was altogether too small. In the National Gallery in London they could afford to spend £70,000 on a picture which would not have fetched £10,000. An hon. Member told the Irish to go down into the cellars of that Institution and dig out the works of art there; but considering the rubbish that was in the Gallery itself what must the rubbish be in the cellar, which the hon. Member wanted to have sent to Dublin? The allowance of £1,000 for buying pictures for the Dublin Gallery was a ridiculously small sum, and he wished the forms of the House permitted him to move to increase it.

§ MR. SEXTON
thought the hon. and gallant Member for Galway was quite 77 right in saying that the sum was too small; and almost worse than its smallness was the fact that had been disclosed, that the Director was not allowed to spend the money to the best advantage, because unless he was able to use the money in one year, he would have to return it, or any balance that there might be, to the Exchequer. Did the return of the money in that way rest upon statute; or was it merely a Regulation of the Treasury? It appeared to him that the English Gallery, because it was wealthy was allowed a greater degree of freedom than the Irish Gallery because it was poor. The former received £5,000 a year from the State, and if they did not use it all the balance could be retained and added to the bequests they had. But the Irish Gallery had no bequests, and he certainly thought the money for its improvement should be spent at the discretion of the managers.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, that no money had been returned during the last five or six years. He should be very glad if the rule which applied to England could also be applied to Ireland, but a grant in aid could not be given unless there was some sum or bequest available for the use of the Gallery. If a small bequest were made to the Dublin Gallery, arrangements could be made similar to those prevailing in England.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, a hardship existed, although no money was returned to the Treasury, because the rule obliged it to be spent within one year or it would practically be lost, so that it could not be laid out to the best advantage of the Dublin National Gallery.