CLASS IV.

HC Deb 24 July 1896 vol 43 cc613-62

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum not exceeding, £616,077 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,375) be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland.

[Progress, 17th July.]

MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (17th July) on the question of the arrears of the fee grant which were due to Ireland rendered it impossible for the Government to remain in their attitude of refusal to pay. The position was curiously analogous to that taken up by the Treasury in regard to the land stock. It was exactly the same principle—heads I win, tails you lose. If an arrangement worked unfavourably to Ireland, Ireland must accept it; but if, owing to an alteration in circumstances, it appeared that Ireland would profit by the arrangement forced upon Ireland by the Treasury, then the arrangement must be changed to the detriment of Ireland. In illustration of the fact that the Treasury were continually on the watch to defraud Ireland and Scotland of their fair proportions of the grant, he directed attention to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, which had evoked much interest in Ireland. When he came into office the right hon. Gentleman said that he examined carefully the whole situation, and he arrived at the conclusion that the course adopted by the Treasury was not a just one, and that the Board of Education in Ireland would have got more than was granted if they had asked for it. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman said they had got, during the three years complained of, all the motley they had asked for. The Secretary to the Treasury admitted that an injustice had been done, that Ireland had not obtained her full share of this grant, and asserted that the fault was that of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, who failed to obtain what Ireland was entitled to. The arrears had been refused on the ground that the financial transactions for that period were closed.

* THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,) Preston

said that with reference to the first two years, all that had been asked for had been paid, but there was the year 1894–5 when the Commissioners asked for the full nine-eightieths in time from the late Treasury, and it was not granted.

MR. DILLON

maintained that the Commissioners did their best to ask for it, and were met by a refusal from the Treasury. Besides, it was not their duty to ask for it; it was the duty of the Treasury and the Irish Government to see that Ireland got all that she was entitled to. The contention that the Treasury was debarred from opening up the closed accounts, even though an injustice had been done to Ireland, was disposed of by the Estimates for the present year. A claim was made early last spring by the Commissioners owing to the Supplementary Estimate presented to Parliament for the English Education Vote. They were entitled to £3,400 in excess of what they received the previous year, and although the financial year was allowed to close and all the accounts were finished without a Supplementary Estimate for the sum this year, in the new financial year the Secretary to the Treasury had presented an Estimate for £3,000 due in respect of the last financial year. Thus the argument was disposed of that it was not competent for the Treasury to open up past financial transactions. There appeared to be a dispute about the correct sum at stake, but let the Committee take it at £100,000. If this was considered by the Treasury to be a small sum the fact was only an additional argument in favour of settling the question. It was largely a question of sentiment and of feeling, though of great importance to the National teachers of Ireland. He called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the very remarkable letters published by the Archbishop of Dublin since the last Debate, designed to show in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman that formal application had been made to the Treasury and refused, that in 1894 Ireland was entitled to £234,000 but only received £210,000, and that the Commissioners called attention to the fact that the Scottish grant for the year had been paid on the proportionate principle and refused to Ireland. Was the right hon. Gentleman able frankly to say that the policy of the Treasury was a continuous policy? Did he repudiate the policy of his predecessor?

* THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.

I do not repudiate it.

MR. DILLON

But you have admitted that an injustice was done. ["Hear, hear!"] Was it worth while for a mere £100,000, or some trifle over, to persist in a wrong? Let them frankly admit the wrong and remedy it.

* THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said he troubled the House on this matter for a few minutes the other day. He was then very much pressed for time, and was unable to state fully the position of the Treasury. He must entirely decline the responsibility which the hon. Member attempted to place upon him. He was not responsible for the action of the Treasury under his predecessor in office, nor were the permanent officers responsible. He was only responsible while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and no longer, and, as the hon. Member had admitted, he had taken action which should have been taken by the late Government. But it was open to the Irish Members to question the conduct of the late Government on this subject.

MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)

, said they had done so.

MR. DILLON

said a successful attempt was made to question the late Government, because this change was initiated as a result of the questions of the hon. Member for Derry.

* THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said no serious attempt had been made by the hon. Members opposite to obtain from the late Government those arrears which they were now asking him to provide. He should say, on the part of the Treasury, that the hon. Gentleman was not quite fair in his suggestion as to the motives that actuated that Department. He suggested that the policy of the Treasury was one of "Heads I win, tails you lose," and that it had carried out this policy with regard to the fee grant as well as with regard to the proposal in the Irish Land Bill to substitute cash for Land Stock. The Treasury repudiated any desire to act unfairly towards any part of the United Kingdom. The proposal with reference to Land Stock came from the Irish Office, and not from the Treasury, and it was the original suggestion of the Scotch Education Department that the change to the ten shillings grant should be made. The hon. Member said it was a simple matter to pay the arrears now asked for. That was not so. He demurred to the statement in the report of the National Board with reference to the amount of the arrears. But even they only asked for £72,000, and the difference between that and the sum of £120,000 named by hon. Members arose from the fact that the National Board did not include one-fourth of the grant for 1892–3 which had not been paid in the course of that financial year.

MR. DILLON

said he accepted the figures of the Archbishop of Dublin.

* THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, with all respect to the Archbishop of Dublin, he was wrong. What happened in 1892–3 was this. The Act named a certain sum as Ireland's share of the fee grant, but only three-fourths of the sum was paid to Ireland in the course of the financial year at the instance of the Commissioners of National Education themselves, because the conditions under which they paid the teachers made it impossible for them to pay the whole amount in the financial year 1892–3. The payment due to the teachers for the last quarter of the year fell into the next year's account. There had been no loss to Ireland in that matter.

MR. KNOX

Will you pay it to us now?

* THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, if Parliament decided to stop this fee grant for the United Kingdom, on March 31st next, what would happen would be that neither England nor Scotland would receive any more after that date, but a quarter's grant would be paid to Ireland after the close of the present financial year. The arrears which were claimed by the National Board amounted to £72,000, the greater part of which sum represented the difference between the amounts actually voted to Ireland by Parliament for the years 1892–3, 1893–4 and 1894–5, as compared with 9–80ths of the sum voted in the original and Supplementary Estimates for England and Wales for those years. He had shown by his own action that in his opinion it was fair under that system, from which they had now departed, that Ireland should receive 9–80ths of the original and Supplementary Estimates of the fee grant: for England, and that had been done for 1895–6. The hon. Member said that because £3,375, which should properly have been voted in 1895–6, would be actually voted in 1896–7, therefore any arrears in previous years should be treated in the same way. His reply was that this £3,375 was really part of the sum which would be due to the teachers for the quarter ending March 31st 1896, and which would only become payable in the first quarter of the present year. Therefore, it was not an arrear in the sense in which the hon. Member suggested. The hon. Member then stated that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had alleged that it was the fault of the National Board that they did not receive these sums for 1893–1 and 1894–5 in the course of those years, and he said that the Board had asked for them at the proper time. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) still maintained that they had not done so. What they did was to write to the Irish Government in the autumn of 1894, calling attention to the fact that they did not receive what they considered a proper amount for the current, or the previous year, and asking that the grant for 1895–6 should be put at £234,000 instead of £210,000 (which was done), and also that arrears should be paid to them for the previous years.

MR. DILLON

asked whether it was not the fact that in 1893 the Treasury wrote that under the official interpretation of the Act, the National Board was only entitled to £210,000?

* THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

did not believe that that was so. At that time the National Commissioners had not made the request which they subsequently made in November 1894. However, he did not want to press that point. The statement he had just made he believed to be the actual fact, but whether it was so or not, it had no material bearing upon the question at issue. They had now changed the system. They had given the full grant asked for by the National Board for 1895–6, and acting under legal advice, they had altered the system in the manner originally suggested by the Scotch Education Department, so as to place it on a much fairer basis—namely, that, each of the three countries should receive 10s. for each child in average attendance. That being so, the hon. Member asked that this sum of £70,000, or whatever it might be, should be given by way of back pay to the teachers who happened to be in the service in 1892–3, 1893–4 and 1894–5. That did not seem to him a reasonable way of utilising this money. He admitted Ireland had a claim to the money, but it would be infinitely better and more appropriate that it should he devoted to increasing the solvency of the Teachers' Pension Fund, which was now practically bankrupt.

MR. KNOX

What about the Convent teachers?

* THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said they were very few, and they were paid by results. He could not admit there was any claim on the part of individual teachers for this payment. He looked upon it as a debt due from the Exchequer to the cause of education in Ireland. Individual teachers had what Parliament had voted for them in the years in question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose admitted it was amply sufficient, and, as a matter of fact, in each of the three years 1892–3, 1893–4, and 1894–5 the National Education Commissioners returned an unexpended balance of £582 for the first year, £3,035 for the second, and £867 for the third year. What they proposed was that a grant of £10,000 should be given towards the deficiency in the Pension Fund. If they could not allocate a further sum to that fund, what would happen to the teachers would be either that the benefits they anticipated from that fund would be reduced, or that their contributions would have to be increased. Their proposal to give £10,000 a year to the Pension Fund would help to make that fund solvent, and they would be able in that way to benefit the teachers far more than by giving them back payments. That was the simple policy they proposed. He had looked into this matter with great care, and he had endeavoured to act impartially, and he believed this to be the proper way of dealing with this sum which he was anxious should be devoted to Irish purposes. He hoped the Committee would agree to that suggestion.

MR. J. J. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

said that the admission of the right hon. Gentleman was a very valuable one indeed, for he had now admitted that there was a debt due to Ireland for these years, 1893–4 and 1894–5. That was exactly what the Irish Members were fighting for the other night.

* THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I admitted it then.

MR. CLANCY

Yes; but at the end of a rather angry Debate. The Irish Members were content with the right hon. Gentleman's admission that there was a debt due to Ireland of some amount at all events, and the only really practical question before the Committee was, how was that amount to be made good? The right hon. Gentleman proposed to make it good by subsidising the Teachers' Pension Fund. He did not recognise that as an equivalent at all. Why was that fund bankrupt? Its bankruptcy was due to an actuarial miscalculation by the Treasury. At any rate, the official who committed that blunder was appointed by the Government, and the Government were, therefore, morally responsible for it, and for the bankruptcy that had resulted from it. He did not at all admit that £10,000 a year to the Teachers' Pension Fund would make up for the money which the right hon. Gentleman admitted was due to Ireland. That fund did not bring any benefit to the teachers in Convent schools. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were few in number; but whether they were few or many they ought to be paid. He had no intention of blaming the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or the present Secretary to the Treasury. They were only now carrying out what their predecessors had neglected to carry out. It was their predecessors that he blamed, and the indictment the Irish Members had brought against them had been proved up to the hilt. Still, even if the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible for the action of his predecessors, he was now in such a position that he was bound to make up this sum. He would not have hesitated to attack the late Government if he had known in time of what he could only call their nefarious transactions.

MR. G. W. WOLFF (Belfast, E.)

said this was a rare occasion when he found himself entirely in accord with hon. Members opposite. ["Hear, hear!"] Differing from them as he did upon almost every point of politics, it was somewhat of a treat now to be able to agree with them. Very full were they of Irish grievances, and with the greater part of their complaints he had no sympathy, but there could be no doubt whatever that this withholding of education grants from Ireland was a grievance of which Irishmen had good cause to complain. The amount was not large in itself, but it was considerable from an Irish point of view and as a Unionist he felt keenly on the point. The grievance was real and could easily be redressed, and it would be a great mistake on the part of the Government not to take the opportunity of satisfying hon. Gentlemen opposite. That this money had been withheld had been admitted on all sides, and now with his admission the right hon. Gentleman promised to make it good with a grant of £10,000 to the Teachers' Pension Fund. Of this fund surely he had heard on more than one occasion that if ever it approached a state of bankruptcy the Treasury would come to its aid, so that the fund would be assisted by the Government anyhow. ["Hear, hear!"] No doubt the £10,000 to the fund would be an advantage, but really there was no guarantee that the grant would be continued beyond the present year, certainly, there was no assurance that it would lie-come a permanent charge. It could not be foreseen how long his right hon. Friends would continue in occupation of the Treasury Bench. ["Hear, hear!"] It could not be foreseen at what interval the real friends of Ireland, as they were called, would return to power and resume the policy of robbing Ireland on the quiet they had pursued hitherto. He was not, therefore, satisfied, though he fully appreciated the desire of his right hon. Friend to make this reparation for the sins of his predecessors. There was not sufficient guarantee that Ireland would get back the money she had lost, and something more should be done than this £10,000 and the promise for the future. It would be a graceful action, and much appreciated by the Irish people if a grant were at once made of the whole amount due.

MR. KNOX

said that as he pressed this matter upon the attention of successive Governments, he felt some gratification at having at last from the representative of the Treasury a practical admission of this claim. He supposed that he had asked some hundreds of questions on this matter from time to time, and he had pressed it more than once in Debate, and now there was some prospect of an understanding being arrived at. In the first place, on the part of responsibility, lie-fully and frankly admitted that the share of the right hon. Gentleman was less than that of his predecessor. He (Mr. Knox) pressed this matter on the attention of the late Chief Secretary in the House in 1894, and in and out of the House he had attempted to force it upon the notice of the Treasury, until the change in the spring of 1895, when another £20,000 was given. He would have pressed it more persistently, but that there were many points of financial detail difficult to grasp and not interesting to Members generally; and it was not until the Archbishop of Dublin, with unrivalled power of clear financial judgment, took up the question and forced it home that it was possible to get Members to understand it. There were other reasons for not pressing it so strongly as it might have been pressed on the late Government, but, so far as he was concerned, he was quite as ready to make the demand upon the late as upon the present Government. Why the right hon. Gentleman was made personally responsible might be explained by applying a commercial analogy quite fitting to the question. Say the Treasury occupies the position of a joint stock company. The directors had changed, the previous directors were responsible for previous short payments. It could not be said the Government or the present directors had left undone anything they ought to have done, but the liability of the company remained, and that was the position of the Treasury. The company had appropriated to its own use money they should have handed over to Ireland. That was the real position; and, avoiding all personality, the Treasury was a standing commercial concern, and the directors for the time were responsible for the administration of its affairs. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the case to this extent, but he contended that the debt was not due to individual teachers, but to Irish education. Without committing himself to this statement entirely, he admitted that the Government would find considerable difficulty in making the distribution among teachers, and he believed that the teachers themselves were not averse to the principle the right hon. Gentleman had enumerated that this debt should be regarded as a debt to Irish education generally. But would the debt be discharged by the proposed grant to the Pension Fund? He was not satisfied that it would. Personally he was in a haze still about this Pension Fund. All he could understand was that the fund was under the direct control of the Treasury. The Commissioners of Education had power to make regulations at the suggestion of the Treasury, and while there was undoubtedly power with the Commissioners to increase pension grants to teachers, as they did upon the Actuarial Report nut before them some years ago, they had no power to decrease grants secured to existing teachers. As he understood, it would be considered a breach of faith towards existing teachers who had made contributions year by year, if reductions were made in the payments promised, and on the faith of which promise they had contributed. The position then was this. It would be possible for the Treasury to prevent liabilities accruing to future teachers. The fund was, he understood, barely sufficient to pay existing liabilities, and it would be possible for the Treasury to prevent any future teachers from receiving grants from it, but practically they could scarcely take up such a position. If they did so they would revert to the position in which the teachers stood before the Pension Fund was started. What was the position then? Though there was no pension scheme of that kind, there was a grant made of £9,000 a year.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

£7,000.

MR. KNOX

thought it was £9,000, but say £7,000. This was a grant every year for the Irish teachers. The history of the grant resembled that of many such grants to Ireland. The Imperial Government discovered they had the Irish Church surplus to dispose of, and that by throwing this charge upon it, they could relieve the Estimates. By the fact of establishing the fund the Treasury were saved £7,000 a year. He admitted he was groping in the dark in endeavouring to get at the facts, but here he arrived at the position that if the Treasury exercised as regards the Pension Fund the full extent of its powers, they would stand exactly where they were when they made an annual grant of £7,000. So that the most that could be said of this offer of £10,000 was that it was £3,000 gain, but it was not secured in perpetuity by any Act of Parliament. One other point he wished to allude to. They had got an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Teachers' Pension Fund would be made solvent, and that £10,000 a year would be devoted to that purpose. In his opinion it would take double that sum to make the fund solvent, and he thought the Government should tell them plainly whether they meant to give only £10,000 a year, or whether they proposed to devote whatever sum might be necessary to make the fund solvent, which, as he had said, would be much more than the £10,000 a year. What he should ask of him was that they should give an undertaking that they should secure by Act of Parliament in perpetuity a sufficient sum that would make the fund solvent. He would also like to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the schools which were not paid from the Pension Fund in the same way, such as the Convent and the Monastery Schools. About one-eighth of the children in average attendance in Irish schools were to be found in Convent or Monastery Schools, and one-fifth of this £155,000 due to the teachers might be said to be due to those schools. It might be said that it would be wasteful to pay down in cash to those schools without some security, the sums to which it was found they were entitled. He suggested that it should be paid to the Convent Schools in order to enable them to improve their machinery of education, or for such other purposes as the National Board might declare to be desirable. He had only to say in conclusion that the Irish Members could not give an answer to the offer made by the Government in regard to the Teachers' Pension Fund, because they had not that offer clearly before them; and he thought it would be well if more light was thrown on the subject from the Treasury Bench.

MR. SAMUEL YOUNG (Cavan, E.)

said that as a commercial man he could conceive no difficulty in going into the account, ascertaining the exact sum due to the Irish teachers, and the most satisfactory settlement of the question would be to hand the money over to the Commissioners of National Education.

MR. JAMES DALY (Monaghan, N.)

was surprised at the niggling, pettifogging manner in which the Government were dealing with the question. It was not denied that the teachers had been defrauded of a certain sum of money. Why, then, do they not get that money? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he was not responsible—that the blame should be laid on the late Government. That was about the shabbiest excuse that could be given, because the present Government had succeeded the late Government, and if the late Government owed a debt, it was the duty of the present Government to pay it. The present Government would not let the Irish people manage their own affairs. It was bad enough for the Irish people to be deprived of their native Parliament without being defrauded by the English Treasury of the money to which they were entitled. But it was only another instance of the way in which every Government, whether Liberal or Tory, treated Ireland. The Chief Secretary had informed him, in reply to questions, that an audit of the teachers' salaries was made every five years, and that if it were found that too much money had been advanced for the purpose, a refund of the balance had to be made to the Treasury. Would it not be, then, but an act of simple justice if the same course were adopted in this case, and the Treasury made to disgorge to the teachers of Ireland the money it owed them. It had been admitted that the late Government were the first to put their hands into the pockets of the teachers; but if the Liberal Party were to obtain Office again, and were to continue the same policy, they should count not on his support, but on his strongest opposition.

* MR. J. H. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

thought that it would be well to accept the present temporary arrangement. Hon. Members assumed that they would get this £78,000 for the teachers as well as an annual grant of £10,000 for the Pension Fund. His experience of the way in which teachers' pension questions had been dealt with led him to doubt very much whether it would be easy to get both those sums for the Irish teachers. If the Government were pressed now they might think it more economical to give the £78,000 as a lump sum; whilst an annual grant of £ 10,000 would probably be of much more benefit to the teachers. It would be wise to wait until the views of the teachers had been ascertained. They were the real creditors. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give his personal atten- tion to the principle on which the educational work in Irish schools was tested, assessed and remunerated. The question could be dealt with without raising any sectarian, financial, or political difficulties. In Ireland the system of payment by results, which had been abandoned years ago in England and Scotland, was still in full swing. It compelled the teachers to look on the children as mere machines for the grinding out of grants. Each separate subject was tested in the case of each particular child

MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)

agreed that in practical politics the Treasury could not permit the Pension Fund falling to the ground. If the present question had never arisen, and the fund had never become embarrassed as the result of actuarial miscalculation, it would have been the duty of the Minister concerned to submit to Parliament a vote for the necessary pecuniary aid. But the Committee ought to know what were the facts—what was being offered. The calculation in reference to the Pension Fund would shortly be completed, and pending the completion, the present arrangement might be temporarily accepted. He wished for some further explanation of the statement made the other night that a certain sum of money had been paid back to the Treasury by the National Commissioners. There must be some other view of that fact than that the Pension Fund was sufficient for its purposes. How else could the Secretary to the Treasury consent to a considerable increase in the grant for the present year?

MR. JASPER TULLY (Leitrim, S.)

thought it was strange that this mistake had not been discovered sooner. Their complaint, however, had been met sympathetically by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the offer of £10,000 a year to the Pension Fund was something substantial. He agreed that the system of payment by results was simply the means of turning the children into machines for money-making for the teachers. Subjects which were of little use to the children in later life were taught in preference to more useful subjects, simply because they earned larger grants. He knew of inspectors who had discouraged the teaching of book-keeping. There was the greatest difficulty in finding any of the boys who were turned out from these schools who knew even the simplest rules of book-keeping. The children should be taught something that would be useful to them in the struggle for life.

* SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

hoped it would not be out of place for an English Member to speak on this question. ["Hear, hear!"] The subject of finance between the various branches of the United Kingdom was an extremely difficult one, and he confessed that in reading the Parliamentary papers on the subject, he found it very difficult to arrive at any final conclusion perfectly satisfactory to himself. Therefore he urged that a question like this, which enabled the matter to be brought into a small focus, should be thoroughly threshed out, and the most complete financial justice done to Ireland in dealing with it. A large portion of the Report of the National Board of Education was occupied with purely financial considerations, instead of dealing with the broader aspects of education, and he regretted that any such question should be permitted to arise. He hoped that the question which had been raised would not be dealt with by a mere compromise. He had heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said on this subject, but it seemed to him an extremely rough and ready mode of dealing with the matter that the payment should be postponed. It appeared evident that whatever had been done amiss in this matter rested with the late Government, but the British Treasury, at all events, was continuous, and if there had been any financial injustice done to Ireland, they had no right to postpone the matter or treat one branch of the United Kingdom unequally as compared with another. He had heard in Ireland very strong expressions of gratitude to the former Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) on the part of the teachers, who felt that he had remedied many injustices. He thought that in all branches of the United Kingdom they ought to act on the German principle, and in order to make their education great they ought to make their educators great. Unless the teachers could devote their whole minds to their work, without being hampered by anxiety as to their future, they would never be able to do justice to education, and for this reason, and not only for the teachers but also for the State, the superannuation of teachers ought to be fully and fairly provided for by legislation. With regard to the need for more commercial teaching in the schools, he was afraid it did fail to exist only in Ireland. He had no desire to minimise the importance of the higher classical education, but modern languages and the modern conditions of commercial success ought not to be neglected. He believed it was quite possible to reconcile culture and commerce, but if one was to be sacrificed it must be that one which was not absolutely essential. He thought the modern tendency not to recognise results was being somewhat overdone; results were, after all, a very important test of what was being done in education. It was undesirable to press the principle to an extreme, but they ought to test their teachers and scholars by looking to results.

* MR. P. C. DOOGAN (Tyrone, E.)

, dealt with the history of the Pension Fund. He pointed out that after the passing of the Irish Education Act, the Government having gone out of Office did not give the Education Commissioners a chance of making any estimate. If the Commissioners wanted to increase an estimate they had to ask the permission of the Treasury. The Report just issued seemed to him to be the vindication of the Commissioners of National Education against the disgraceful reflections which had been cast upon them by the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench.

* MR. HANBURY

asked the hon. Member what disgraceful reflections he referred to; what he had said was that they had failed to ask for the full amount.

* MR. DOOGAN

said that he admitted that, but, because it was not within their power to ask for the full amount, that was a disingenuous statement. Any impartial person would say that no blame whatever attached to the Commissioners. He did not think that Irish Members, on behalf of the teachers, could accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay this £10,000 to the Pension Fund in lieu of what was due to them by the Treasury. He could not understand why the Treasury themselves did not pay what was due to the Pension Fund of these overworked and underpaid Irish teachers. Another fact was that the Treasury was three months in arrear in their payments to the Irish Education Board. How was it that the Treasury were not equally in arrear in their payments to the English and Scotch Education authorities? The knowledge that the English Treasury were in arrear in their payments to the Irish Education authorities would have an exceedingly bad effect in Ireland, and would operate detrimentally upon the whole system of Irish National Education. It was the duty of the Government to see that no real injustice was done to Irish education through the negligence of the Treasury. No teachers could properly discharge their duties if what they had justly earned were not paid to them. He hoped that the Government would see their way to do justice to the Irish teachers, and that, until some definite arrangement had been arrived at, the Government would hand over the money that was due to the teachers to the Irish National Board of Education, and so remove the bitter feeling that had arisen with reference to this question. After all, no State contribution gave a better return for the outlay than that which was given towards education. Parliament voted large sums for naval and military purposes, and yet it was unwilling to grant sufficient money to enable Irish Education to be efficiently carried on. In the main, education in Ireland had been fairly successful. He contended that in reference to this matter a great financial wrong and injustice had been done to the Irish teachers, and he hoped that the Government would see their way to remedy the grievance under which that deserving body of public servants suffered. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. T. M. HEAEY

said that for many years the Government had had before them the complaint of the Irish National Board of Education that the Teachers' Pension Fund was deficient, and was in fact in a position of actuarial insolvency, and yet they had taken no steps for the purpose of placing the fund on a sound basis by making up the deficiency. He wanted to know when the Board of National Education had first reported to the Treasury that the fund was insolvent. How was it that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had arrived at the conclusion that a sum of £10,000 a year was a fair equivalent for the £24,000 which it was admitted was due to Ireland in respect of this matter? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had last week thrown the blame for the deficiency upon "the late Treasury." What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by the expression "the late Treasury"? He might just as well have, referred to "the late British Empire." The right hon. Gentleman said that the "late Treasury," as represented, possibly, by some clerk, refused certain information.

* MR. HANBURY

explained that he had said that it was the political chiefs of the Department who had failed to do their duty.

MR. T. M. HEALY

had thought the right hon. Gentleman intended to make an attack upon Sir John Hibbert.

* MR. HANBURY

No; it was an attack upon the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who ought to be here to-day.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked by how much the Teachers' Pension Fund was actually deficient, and why the nuns were not to have a share in the sum of £10,000 a year which was to be offered to the National Board. The nuns, he maintained, were entitled to one-eighth of it. He wished also to know whether this business was to be transacted by statute. If it was proposed that the money should appear annually upon the Estimates, they could never be sure that it would not be withheld. Would the scheme of the Government make the Pension Fund actuarially solvent? Whenever the Nationalist Members drew attention to matters of this kind they were met by the statements of one Member of the Government after another, each of whom commanded the support of a skilled permanent staff. It was hard on private Members, who had not the same means of obtaining facts and figures, that they should have to wrestle with different sets of political athletes, or, to vary the phrase, with the trained acrobats of the Treasury Bench. [Laughter.] He trusted that the Treasury had consulted the National Board before proposing this compensation scheme. If they had not done so, they had added insult to injury.

* MR. HANBURY

, replying to the question whether the £10,000 would be made payable by statute or be merely charged on the rates, said that sufficient for the year must be the £10,000 thereof until they could obtain more accurate information as to the position of the Pension Fund than they had at present. The hon. and learned Member complained that he had no means of ascertaining the condition of the fund. Well, to a great extent the Treasury was also ignorant on the subject, because a large number of actuarial calculations were involved. A Committee had now been sitting for some time, and had gone very carefully into this question, and the Treasury had promised that when the Report was presented a full and complete statement of the condition of the fund would be laid before Parliament. Until the Report was ready they were, necessarily, somewhat in the dark.

MR. KNOX

wished to know what the offer of the Government really was. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, first, that he would give £10,000 a year; and, secondly, that he would make the fund solvent. As a matter of fact, he knew that £10,000 would not make the fund solvent.

* MR. HANBURY

said that the only promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the promise of £10,000.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

asked whether, under the provisions of the statute which established the Pension Fund, the Consolidated Fund was not liable to make good any deficiency in the Pension Fund?

* MR. HANBURY

replied that his impression was that the statute to which the hon. Member referred did not make the Consolidated Fund liable.

MR. W. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

did not think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman a satisfactory one. The Irish Members had not yet been assured that the £125,000 due to Ireland would be repaid. All sections of Irishmen were dissatisfied with the manner in which this financial business concerning education had been conducted during the past year. There were two or three other points to which he wished to draw attention. Whilst he recognised that it would be unwise probably to abolish the system of result fees altogether, he maintained that at present the system was abused. Clever pupils were sought for throughout the country, and they were crammed and used as money-making machines for educational institutions. As regarded technical education, the Irish system was worse than that of any other civilised country in the world. For example, they had hardly any agricultural education, and yet agriculture concerned two-thirds of the Irish people. The residences of the teachers, too, in many places in the country, were certainly unfitted for the habitation of gentlemen occupying such a position. Some time since it was promised that the amount of grant for teachers' residences should be increased, but it had not been increased; and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would direct his attention to that practical point. The question of retiring gratuities for teachers, again, was a matter calling for urgent attention. The miserable allowance properly due from the fund had been denied—refused by the rich Treasury of Great Britain, which owed Ireland £125,000, whilst the families of these poor creatures were allowed to fall into destitution and want by reason of red tape. And there was a greater question behind all this, because undoubtedly people pointed to this sort of thing and said—"This is the way England treats Ireland." Moreover, the Secretary to the Treasury could not give them any satisfaction as to the position of the fund. Two quinquennial revisions were due—that was to say, the great British Treasury was 13 or 14 years behind as regards the Pension Fund of the Irish National teachers. Why, if the Irish nation were 13 or 14 years behind in their taxes, what would become of her? [Laughter.] He hoped a more satisfactory answer would be forthcoming.

MR. KNOX

was sorry after the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, and he should therefore move the Amendment standing in his name—to reduce Item I by £50. The words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were clear, that he was going to make this fund solvent. If that were so, he would say that the offer should be considered. Admittedly, the debt was due. But it appeared, in the first place, that the convent schools were to get nothing; and secondly, the teachers were only to get £10,000. This sum was not enough to make the, fund solvent, or anything like it. He should be very much surprised if it was the case that the Treasury had no information at all of the amount of money that would be required to make this fund solvent. They had further a statement that the £10,000 was not to be secured permanently, but "sufficient for the year was the £10,000 thereof." The offer made was not at all satisfactory, and he moved the reduction of the Vote by £50 in respect of the fee grant.

MR. J. C. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

commented on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intimation that in future the Treasury were to consider whether the fee grant was not to be altered from its present basis, and that while in England it was to be upon the capitation grant of 10s. per child in average attendance, it was not to be so as regards Ireland and Scotland. Irish Members must at once proclaim their dissent from any such doctrine. The Irish Members dissented from the principle, whether in regard to Rating Bills or Education Bills, that the Treasury could alter financial relations according as it pleased. Hints were now being thrown out that because nine-eightieths were found to work favourably for Ireland and Scotland, they must revert to the 10s. capitation grant, and that, if the 10s. capitation grant was found to be unduly favourable to either Ireland or Scotland, those countries would be driven back to the principle of nine-eightieths. He protested against the doctrine that the Treasury should apply a different measure of treatment to those countries according as it suited their ideas of finance. The accuracy of the figures in relation to Ireland was confirmed in 1891, and nothing had since occurred to show that they were wrong. As far as the future of the fee grant was concerned, therefore, Ireland would insist that the bargain made in 1888 should be adhered to, and that the Treasury should abandon the new principle of the 10s. capitation grant. In the matter of education generally, he showed that the Commission had recommended that the average attendance of 70 in rural schools should be reduced to 60, but the Lord Lieutenant had refused to sanction the change, probably because he was afraid of the Treasury. But, in carrying out the suggested reform, a portion of the £125,000 could be usefully spent in this direction.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said he had quoted from memory the provision of the Act under which the Tension Fund was started, and its application to the repayment to the Consolidated Fund of the deficiencies arising from the fund itself. The section did refer to repayment to the Consolidated Fund, but not in the particular form indicated. The Act also dealt with another point to which he wished to call the attention of the Treasury. There ought to be laid on the Table of the House every year a statement showing the expenditure and receipts in connection with the fund for the year ended December 31 previous, and also a statement of the stock purchased and held up to date. On inquiring of the authorities in the Library whether they had such Returns, he found that the last Return was rendered in 1893, but that the Act had not been complied with either for last year or the year before. It looked, therefore, as if those responsible for the conduct of the fund, not having a satisfactory tale to tell, had not sent in the usual annual Return, and thus the House was left without the information which under the Act it was entitled to receive.

MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)

was glad to hear that the Treasury had admitted that the sum claimed on behalf of Ireland was justly due to her. The principle had been admitted that Ireland was to receive nine-eightieths of what had been paid to England for the fee grant up to now. Now, with regard to the way in which they were going to apply the money to Ireland, they were going to give the money back in the shape of £10,000 a year to the Pension Fund. In Ireland education was managed differently from education in England and Scotland. It was managed by a central authority. As to these equivalent grants, it was a system which would give them an unending amount of trouble before they had done with it. They had now got round to the principle for which he contended in 1891, but the extraordinary suggestion was made that it was the Scotch Office which was responsible. What had the Scotch Office to do with Ireland? ["Hear, hear!"] What they were contending for was a principle, and they should support this Amendment, for they knew that they suffered, if not to a degree equal to that of Ireland.

Question put, "That Item I (School Grants) be reduced by £50."—(Mr. Knox.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 154.—(Division List, No. 347.)

MR. J. P. FARRELL (Cavan, W.)

desired to call attention to certain matters upon this Vote. He thought it would be generally admitted that in a great many ways the education of the children of Ireland was not in such a satisfactory condition as it should be. In the first place, the school books in use were lamentably deficient for the purpose of imparting the instruction necessary for the training of the young mind, or for fitting the children for the battle of life. The very same style of book was now in use as that which was introduced 50 years ago, containing diffuse quotations from the writings of Archbishop Whateley and other examples of that character, dealing with problems that could be of no benefit to the children of the working classes. These books ought to be replaced by others which would contain lessons of a practical kind. They were living in a very progressive age, and if they were to properly equip the rising generation, in an educational sense, and give them a knowledge of the various questions which were at the present day affecting the welfare of the people as a whole, they should do so, not according to the antiquated notions of 25 or 30 years ago, but by imparting an up-to-date practical instruction to their children, as was done in Germany and other continental countries, as well as in America. One of the subjects that were neglected very much by the Education Board in Ireland was the study of the native language. It was quite true that efforts, proceeding, he supposed, from philanthropic quarters, were being made by individuals and societies throughout Ireland to keep this matter in the forefront. But this was not enough. What objection could there be to making the Irish language one of the subjects for teaching in the elementary schools? If such a thing were done there would be no difficulty in obtaining the necessary staff of teachers, and once they began to learn the children to speak the native tongue its revival would speedily take place. He read in an article a short time ago that while some years back the English language was spoken by 31,000,000 people, in 1896 150,000,000 were speaking English. He thought the English people, as a whole, had robbed Ireland of quite enough without robbing her of her language. Englishmen were proud of the spread of their own tongue, and why should Irishmen not endeavour to bring about a revival of their own native language. He urged that the study of Irish should be made a compulsory subject in elementary schools. Turning to the grievances of the National school teachers, he complained that, in consequence of the fact that the Education Board was not licensing a sufficient number of schools, the openings for a deserving class of school teachers were not such as could be desired. For instance, in the town from which he came there were three first-class assistant teachers, all of them thoroughly well qualified to take charge of a school. One of them had been waiting 14 years for a school, but in consequence of the niggardliness of the central authority there was no opening to be found for these deserving young men, and they had to work on at a beggarly £50 a year. Then there was the question of monitors, a most deserving class also; and in consequence of the fact that there was no opening for the assistant teachers, there were no adequate facilities for the appointment of monitors. As regarded the principal teachers themselves, grave discontent existed among them on the question of the capitation allowances. They said the capitation allowances were totally inadequate since the Education Board had given education free and debarred them from the right to receive remuneration from the scholars. He claimed that the teachers of Ireland compared most favourably with those of any part of the Three Kingdoms, and yet they were exceedingly ill-paid, having regard to their educational qualifications and equipment. The right hon. Gentleman, he admitted, had shown no disposition to treat them unkindly. This subject of educational progress lay at the very root of the whole social system. It was absolutely necessary, if they wished to train up an orderly and law-abiding class of citizens, they should give them a good sound education. The question of the constitution of the Education Board in Dublin was another matter which called for inquiry at the hands of the Government, because, whatever might be said as to the capabilities of the gentlemen composing it, the Board did not command the confidence and respect of the country generally. He was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman would have, sooner or later, to settle the constitution of that Board in accordance with the predominant religious feeling of the people. The majority of the Board was composed of men who neither politically nor religiously sympathised with the people of Ireland.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I think the Board is half Protestant and half Catholic.

MR. J. P. FARRELL

said he accepted the correction of the right hon. Gentleman, and was glad to hear that such was the case. He did not think, however, that that fact was altogether so satisfactory as they could wish it to be. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider what he had said on this subject, in which the very greatest interest was taken in Ireland.

MR. DILLON

said he sympathised most warmly with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Cavan with regard to the Irish language, and he hoped a successful attempt would be made to revive the study of the ancient Irish tongue, which had been persecuted out of the land. It was one of the most interesting languages in Europe, and there was no reason why the people of Ireland should not be able to speak their mother tongue. He believed this subject would be brought up year after year until the language got proper recognition, both in the primary and secondary schools of the country and in the University. He now desired to allude briefly to a subject of great importance, namely, that of model schools. He understood that while it would not be in order to move any reduction on the general administration of the Vote in Ireland, they were not precluded from referring to the whole Vote by reason of the fact that a reduction had been moved on Item I.

* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

said that the rule was that, after a reduction had been moved upon an item the Committee could not go back to a previous item. It was open to the Committee to discuss the whole Vote, but the hon. Member would have to confine himself to dealing with the matter in purely general terms, and not discuss items.

MR. DILLON

said he was always under the impression that the rule only excluded them from raising a specific Debate as regarded some specific item, and moving a reduction in regard to it. It seemed somewhat hard that the moving of a reduction on Item I. should exclude them from discussing the general administration of the Vote.

* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

said it was the rule of the House which bound him as it did the hon. Member. When a question had been proposed for omitting or reducing any item, no Motion could be made or Debate allowed upon any preceding item. He might say, as an illustration, that he allowed the discussion just now upon the Celtic language on the ground that it was not referred to in any previous item. It was a matter of general interest in connection with the Estimate, but he stopped the hon. Member as soon as he came to the question of teachers' residences, because for that there was a special sum down in a special item.

MR. DILLON

said the question he desired specially to refer to was the management and administration of the Board in connection with model schools, and he fancied that, on a matter so essentially a part of the general administration of the Board, he should be in order in discussing it. He would direct his attention to the fact that it stood in exactly the same position as the general Vote for teachers and for the general administration of the Board.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

said the hon. Member would see that there was a special Vote for model schools.

MR. DILLON

desired to point out that there was also a special Vote for all the teachers in all the schools, and if that ruling stood they would be absolutely precluded from saying anything on the Education Vote at all.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

said that the hon. Member would remember that the Vote was under discussion some hours last week, and that it had been under discussion some hours that day, and about an hour ago a Motion was made on Item I. and a decision was taken upon that item. He was bound by the Rules of the House, and he could not allow a discussion upon a previous question.

MR. DILLON

said he wanted to clearly understand the ruling. Was it the Chairman's ruling that they could not discuss any part of the administration of the Board with regard to model schools after that decision had been taken?

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

said it depended. He allowed a discussion upon the Celtic language because that was a matter of general policy. He had also allowed a discussion with regard to the composition of the National Board, because there was no item relating to that. But a matter of administration as to which there was a special item in the Vote he did not think could be discussed after a discussion upon Item I.

MR. FIELD

said he should like to ask whether there was any opportunity at a subsequent stage on which a discussion could be raised, as the Chairman's ruling had been quite unexpected by hon. Members on that side of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

said he did not think his ruling was unexpected. He had made it many times both this Session and last Session. It had been ruled pretty steadily since 1868, when the Order was passed. He would remind the hon. Member that he had had an opportunity at the commencement of that day, and also last week, when this Vote was under discussion.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

asked if it was not possible for an hon. Gentleman to move a reduction on an item far away down, and so preclude any discussion on any of the preceding Votes.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

said that would be perfectly possible and it had frequently been done, but hon. Members had risen and said they wished to discuss matters on a previous item.

MR. TULLY

asked if it would be possible to raise the question of religious education as applied to these model schools.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

As applied to model schools, no, because there is a specific item dealing with that.

MR. HENRY BROADHURST (Leicester)

expressed the opinion that any money which the Chief Secretary thought it right to ask for for the purposes of Irish Education would be granted almost unanimously. He had no hesitation in saying that his constituents would support him in assisting the right hon. Gentleman to put an end to the scandals which they had heard disclosed in the speech of the hon. Member for Cavan. That hon. Member had revealed a state of things which no English or Scotch or Welsh Member would tolerate for a moment, and he trusted the Chief Secretary would make application to the House for funds on every occasion when it was necessary to supply such obvious necessities as the hon. Member for Cavan had pointed out. He entirely agreed, too, with the view that some assistance should be given for the cultivation and development of the Celtic language. It might be said that this was a mere matter of sentiment, and that therefore it was frivolous and useless to spend public money upon it. Even if it was a matter of sentiment, was not patriotism made up of sentiment, and he did not see why they should not encourage patriotism in the case of Ireland just as they encouraged it in the case of Scotland and Wales. There was not a Scotchman worthy of the name who did not glory in being a Scotchman; he showed it on any and every occasion—["Hear, hear!" and laughter]—and Englishmen joined in his glorification. Why should they not try and cultivate the same feeling in Ireland? Speaking for himself, he knew nothing whatever of the Gaelic language, but he had heard it spoken; he had heard it used for public purposes, and for purposes of religious instruction, and in appeals to the patriotism of the people, and he could not help feeling proud of belonging to a country which had so many component parts as that language represented. He was entirely in favour of the appeal which had been made by the Irish Members to the Chief Secretary. With regard to the request for more money for education in Ireland, he believed the English people would heartily support the Chief Secretary in making a more liberal provision for that purpose.

MR. MACNEILL

said he would appeal to the Chief Secretary to encourage the Celtic language in Ireland. In his own constituency there was a large population who only spoke Irish, and who could neither read nor write English, not because they were wanting in intelligence, but because sufficient educational facilities had not been offered them. Donegal was once a great centre of learning—a fact which was evidenced by the existence in that part of Ireland of many literary treasures in the Irish tongue; and a cultivation of that language would open those treasures to the people. Though illiterate, the Donegal peasant was a man of much natural intelligence, and the better the education he received the more valuable would he become, not only to Ireland, but to the whole Empire. The teaching of Irish need not detract from the study of English. Both tongues could be taught together, and the Chief Secretary would do a good work educationally, and in the development of character, if he brought into the Irish system of education a complete and thorough means of teaching Irish grammatically and structurally, and in thus opening the treasures which that language concealed.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

said that the best way for satisfactorily settling this and other questions affecting Ireland would be to place them in the hands of the Irish people themselves—to give them a Parliament of their own in which they might discuss and give effect to them in their own way. ["Hear, hear!"] He would not trespass on the time of the Committee by dwelling on the general question of the educational policy in Ireland further than to say that he thought his hon. Friend was well advised, and did a useful work in raising the question which was before the Committee. Occasional glances at the Reports of the English and Scotch Education Departments convinced him that the educational methods in England and Scotland were steadily improving. He wished he could think that improvement was proceeding at the same rate in Ireland. In his opinion the steady improvement in educational methods in these islands was largely due to the criticism which educational methods received year after year from English members in this House, and that when those Members rose they were not received with a deprecating start from the English Minister of Education, who was the director of the English educational policy. One of the glaring defects of the British system in Ireland was that one gentleman had to answer for all departments of Irish life, a fact which taxed the energies of the most robust men. In the matter of singing it was notorious that within the past 20 years, public school singing in England had been improved to an extent which no other country in the world could boast of. That was not so in Ireland. In England a great improvement had been effected through the development of the tonic sol fa system. In Ireland that system was almost unknown. Take the teaching of spelling. He held that a child could easily, by a proper system of teaching spelling, be taught to read in such a way that at five years old he or she could read the newspapers. If they took up the reports of the English School Inspectors they found that the teaching of spelling, and, through it, the teaching of reading was receiving constant study and attention. In Ireland that was not so. The whole system of elementary education in England was enormously in advance of anything that existed in Ireland. Whereas there had been an immense advance during the last 20 years in educational methods in England, in Ireland to-day the system of education was what it was 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago. It was perhaps unfair to expect the right hon. Gentleman to devote his attention to this important matter in the way an English Minister did, but he asserted that if they had in Ireland an Education Department which would do for Ireland which the English Education Department was doing for England, the system of elementary education in Ireland would be enormously and vastly improved. As to the teaching of Gaelic in Irish schools he entirely shared the view that it would be preposterous for any one to hope or desire to expel or exterminate the English language in Ireland. For good or evil the English language must always be the most important or predominant language in Ireland, but all he and his Friends asked was that the Government should do for the Irish language in Ireland what they willingly and cheerfully did for the Gaelic in Scotland and for the Welsh language in Wales. There was a large juvenile population in Ireland who were still solely Irish speakers. That population had to go to school, and the question was, how they were to be treated when they were got there. The Irish Education Department treated them as if they were English children. English books were put into their hands, and they were taught to spell o-x, ox, and d-o, do, and were put through all the rest of the elementary course of learning to read as if they were already acquainted with the English language. For all practical purposes the books put into their hands might as well be written in Greek or in Sanscrit. An intelligent way to deal with this problem, and the way which was strongly recommended by the late Sir Patrick Keenan, was to deal with the children as Irish children; to teach them first of all to read in Irish, and then, through Irish, to teach them to read in English. The one effect of the present method of dealing with the children was that when at 12, 13 or 14 they left school, they were, for all practical purposes, as ignorant of English as they were the day they entered it. From an educational point of view alone, it was of the utmost importance that the Irish Educational Department should treat Irish children as the children in the Highlands of Scotland and as the Welsh children in Wales were treated. No one desired that the children should not be taught English; on the contrary, he advocated the teaching of them in the way he desired because he believed they would learn English better. Of course, the direct result of the adoption of what he advocated would be that they would teach the children English better and do something to keep the ancient language of Ireland alive. He was pained to see the attitude assumed by the hon. Member for South Belfast, who represented what might be called the Philistine view—the view that all knowledge was to be estimated and computed by its value in pounds, shillings and pence. That was a short-sighted view of the subject, and one which no one of the intellectual eminence of the Chief Secretary would take. That was not only a Philistine view, but it was a view that had done much harm to English interests in Ireland. The view advocated by the hon. Member for South Belfast was the same that was put forward three centuries ago by the poet Spenser in his survey of the state of Ireland, when he advocated the total suppression of the Irish language, on the ground that "where the speech is Irish, there the heart must be Irish too." But if English Statesmen wished to see the day when their work in Ireland should be respected and loved, they must not strive to suppress and exterminate Irish nationality, but must foster and encourage it. The hon. Member for South Belfast, in what he had said that evening, did not really express the views of his own class in Ireland, for the bulk of the work done in recent years in furtherance of the Irish language and literature had been done by the descendants of Protestant settlers. The most intellectual and successful workers in the field of the Irish language and archaeology had been men of Protestant descent. The Irish language was being studied now in Germany, and France, and Italy, and the work done in Germany alone in the last 30 or 40 years for the Irish language far surpassed anything done in these islands in the same period. The interest that the Irish language excited among scholars and philologists was constantly increasing.

MR. W. O'MALLEY (Galway, Connemara)

said that in order that the English language might he taught successfully in Ireland, it was absolutely necessary that there should be a, sufficient number of teachers who knew the Irish language. At present on the western seaboard there was a great dearth of Irish speaking teachers. That was much to be regretted, as many children through want of proper teaching grew up in ignorance of English, and that was very disadvantageous to them when they had to go to other countries, as many of them unfortunately had to.

* MR. DOOGAN

contended that the number of Irish speaking teachers ought to be increased. The backward state of education in Ireland as compared with England was, he believed, largely due to the system of payment by results. It encouraged the practice of crude and cruel cram, and only developed one faculty of the mind, namely, the memory. Under this system teachers were prone to devote themselves chiefly to the education of the bright children, and to leave those who were slow to take care, of themselves. The whole system was based upon an erroneous assumption. It assumed that children of the same age and class had the same mental capacity. But they would not get three children equally gifted in the same class. He thought that many of the subjects should be eliminated from the school programme, and that the children should be trained with a view to develop all their faculties and with due regard to morals and discipline. The mere dry bones of a system of payment by results operated injuriously to the efficiency of the national education. Not one penny of public money was paid on the results of individual examination of pupils in England and Scotland. Why then should the system continue year after year in Ireland? It made the lives of the teachers miserable and tended to give the children a hatred of education and of school life. He pressed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland once for all to have this pernicious system abolished or greatly modified.

On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,

MR. FIELD

said he wished to voice the feelings of the many societies in Dublin which advocated the encouragement of the teaching of the Irish language in the national schools in Ireland. He asked that the result fees with respect to the teaching of Irish should be raised to the same standard as those given for proficiency in foreign languages which were not of commercial value. The system of national education in Ire-was wrong from the beginning. The National Board of Education was composed almost entirely of eminent educationists, professional men, and divines, and did not include any practical commercial man who knew the wants of the Irish nation from a commercial and practical point of view. The result was the children were taught to be memory machines, and did not receive the technical education which was now so necessary. The result was, an article was being produced for which there was no demand. There was no country in Europe so deficient in technical education at the present time as Ireland. Industrial or commercial training was almost unknown in the national system of education of Ireland, and yet that system was frequently praised as an almost perfect institution. This was a matter that vitally concerned the material prosperity of Ireland, and unless there was some amount of material prosperity in the country the people could not be contented and happy. Besides, an ignorant people were more difficult to rule than an educated people, because education enabled a man to take a broadminded view of things and to look beyond the narrow and sectional interests which perhaps influenced those about him. In countries abroad, children were given a commercial or a technical education; they were fully equipped with the armour of experience and knowledge to enable them to fight successfully in the battle of life. But in Ireland the girls were not taught to sew or cook; the boys were not given an agricultural or manual training; they merely learned pages of books by rote, with the result that they were utterly unfitted for positions in life for which they were destined. These might seem novel assertions coming from the Irish Benches. But, unfortunately, they were absolutely true. Until the system of national education in Ireland was made more practical it must be a complete failure in the future, as it had been, to some extent, in the past. The whole system required to be reconstructed, in order to fit Irish boys and girls for the struggle with the youth of other countries.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said the greater part of the discussion on the Vote had centred round two questions—the constitution of the Board of National Education, and the teaching of the Irish tongue in the Elementary Schools of Ireland. It was complained that the Education Board was not sufficiently representative, and one hon. Member had suggested that, in order to cure the evils of the system, an autocrat in the person of the Chief Secretary should step in. The Chief Secretary might be an autocrat in many departments of Irish public life, but so far as education was concerned the Commissioners were supreme, subject, of course, to the rules under which they worked, and all the Chief Secretary could do was to bring those suggestions before the Board. He could not force them on the Board, even if he agreed with them. He was sure he need not be suspected of throwing cold water on the study of the Irish language, which was once—though it could hardly be said to be so any longer—the national tongue of Ireland. He had not attempted the study of that language in Ireland, but he did once make a serious attempt to master it as it was spoken in Scotland. He could not, however, say that that attempt had been very successful, for after a few weeks or months of study he had to give it up as a bad job. [Laughter.] He knew something of Greek and Latin, but compared with Gaelic the study of Greek or Latin was a trifle. [Laughter.] Undoubtedly the language had a very valuable and interesting literature—more so in Ireland than in Scotland—but it appeared to him that in those days its study was more the concern of scholars and philologists than of practical men. ["Hear, hear!"] So far as elementary education was concerned, the question that had to be dealt with was, what would best equip for their future business in life those who passed through the Elementary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought he noticed two different trends of thought in the discussion. Some hon. Members contended that the study of Irish should be encouraged in order that it might become once more something like the national tongue of Ireland. They would like to see Erse restored as a national language, but any expectation of that kind was absolutely chimerical; and, if it were not, he doubted whether its fulfilment would be an advantage to the Irish people. One hon. Member wished the study of Irish to be encouraged in the elementary schools in order to increase the spread of "our tongue"—meaning by that a tongue which the hon. Member did not himself speak—[laughter]—and another hon. Member wished to see the study of Erse encouraged from sentiments of patriotism. No doubt there was a strong feeling of the kind in Wales, but he did not think there was a desire in Scotland to perpetuate the knowledge and practice of the Gaelic speech. It was not desirable artificially to stimulate the study of the Irish language, but if there was a natural inclination to study it he should not stand in the way. If the education in the elementary schools was to fit the children for their place in life, the study of Irish could not be particularly encouraged. But there were some districts in Ireland where the Irish tongue was still the national language of the people, and there probably the best way of teaching the children would be first to teach them to use their own language properly. As to the salaries of teachers in Ireland, they were undoubtedly smaller than those of teachers in England, but the circumstances and systems of the two countries were different. One third of the salaries of English and Scotch teachers was derived from local sources; in Ireland the whole burden was borne by the State. Then, again, many of the Irish schools were very small. The proportion of children to teachers was double in England to that in Ireland. As to the importance of making the elementary education in Ireland more practical and useful, and less of mere book-learning, he entirely sympathised with that object. He had no power to impose his views on the Commissioners, but understood that they themselves were moving in this direction, and in a short time he hoped to see a real development in the direction so much to be desired. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. FIELD

asked whether some commercial men could not be introduced on the National Board?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said that there were already two commercial members on the Board.

Original Question put and agreed to.

2. £605 to complete the sum for Endowed Schools Commissioners, Ireland—Agreed to.

3. £1,643 to complete the sum for National Gallery of Ireland,—

SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Kerry, W.)

called attention to the small sum allowed (£1,000) for the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery of Ireland. This was very unfair when it was remembered that the National Gallery in England got anything they asked for from the Treasury. It was not often possible to buy a good picture for £1,000.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said he would be very glad to see a larger sum voted for the purchase of pictures, but the hon. Member knew the hardn+ess of the Treasury's heart. The hon. Member said that the Trustees of the English National Gallery had only to come to the Treasury to get all they wanted; but he did not think that would be the account given by the Trustees themselves. For the present year the grant in aid to the National Gallery in London amounted to only £5,000, and, on the principle of the equivalent grant, he did not think it would be fair to claim more than £1,000 for the gallery in Dublin. He entirely sympathised with what the hon. Member said with regard to the difficulty of buying good pictures with so small a sum, and he certainly thought it would be reasonable, if more could be granted, that the authorities should be allowed to accumulate the money, so that when occasion offered it might be possible to buy a really valuable picture.

SIR THOMAS ESMONDE

pointed out that not many years ago the National Gallery in London got as much as £75,000. He would suggest that, when an occasion offered of securing some good pictures, the Treasury might consider the possibility of making a special grant for the purpose.

Vote agreed to.

4. £2,450 to complete the sum for Queen's Colleges, Ireland,—

MR. DILLON

said this Vote raised one of the most important and burning questions in Irish affairs. They were told by Unionists that they had only to bring a really substantial grievance to the notice of the House of Commons to have it remedied. Here was a grievance of a quarter of a century's standing. It had been defeated over and over again, and it had been admitted as a crying grievance by both Parties. The present Government were in a peculiarly strong position for dealing with the question of university education in Ireland. The Irish Catholics were assured that, if a Unionist Government were returned to power, this question would be finally settled. There were four great teaching universities in Ireland, three endowed by the State and one by ancient endowments. Dublin University had an immense income from ancient endowments, and while it was true it was nominally an unsectarian institution, it was, in reality, a Protestant college. Nearly 50 years ago the system of Queen's colleges was set up for the specific purpose of meeting the grievances of the Irish Catholics. These colleges were established in Belfast, Cork, and Galway. The college in Belfast had passed entirely into the hands of the Presbyterians, and they had made it a great institution. The colleges in Cork and Galway were established to meet the wants of the Catholics in those great Catholic centres, but, from the day they were established to the present hour, the Government had persisted in running them on a system which made them unsuitable to the wants of the Catholics. If the wishes of the Catholics had been consulted, these colleges would have brought untold advantages to the people of Connaught and Munster. Cork College had done somewhat better than Galway, but they had both failed in the purpose for which they were intended. He did not know any subject in which this Government might be more reasonably expected to legislate than this. When he brought the question before the House on a former occasion, the Chief Secretary said it was a matter in connection with which the Catholics had suffered a great grievance, and one which demanded legislation. He was perfectly well aware that the previous Conservative Government passed a Bill to set up the Royal University in Ireland to meet the wants of the Catholics. The Royal University had done a certain amount of good work, but it did not supply the primary want for the higher education of the people, and that was a great teaching institution. Catholics who could not go to the Queen's Colleges were denied a University education. That was a cruel disability for them to labour under, and a Government like the present, who had the power to remedy the grievance, ought to take the very earliest opportunity of applying themselves to it. The college of Belfast had been recognised as a Presbyterian body, and the whole administration of the college was based on the principle that it had to cater for Presbyterian students; but Galway was run in such a way as to make it difficult for Catholics to enter the college. The Government should make a frank declaration that they intended to tackle this great problem of university education on the principle of treating all religious denominations equally. Irishmen had never been able to accept the Queen's College system as an adequate substitute for a university system. They were entitled to demand that there should be in Dublin, side by side with Trinity College, a teaching institution, equal in prestige and in position, which should be acceptable and open to the Catholic youth of Ireland. Nothing less than this would satisfy the Irish Catholics.

* MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

demurred to the statement that Belfast College was exclusively a Presbyterian College.

MR. DILLON

I said it was practically, not exclusively, a Presbyterian College.

* MR. JOHNSTON

showed that a large number of the students were connected with the Church of Ireland, and they were proud of the large number of Presbyterian students who took advantage every year of the education given in Queen's College. He should like to say a few words as to the endowment of a Roman Catholic University. He was strongly opposed to anything of the kind. They regretted if the Roman Catholics did not take advantage of the existing system side by side with Protestant students. He ventured to urge that they should have such educational institutions that they could all meet on a common platform.

MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

said it was quite true, as they were told, that they had Dublin University, and that it, like Belfast Queen's College was open to Catholics, but it reminded him of what Cromwell said: "What do they want with churches, ours are open?" What was the use of talking about Trinity College being open, and the Queen's College open, so long as the system under which they were conducted precluded Catholics from attending them?

* MR. JOHNSTON

The hon. Member for Waterford is a Trinity College man.

MR. HARRINGTON

Yes, and I was at Trinity College myself, but that is not an answer. They desired for their country a system of education which would not preclude the great majority of the people from partaking of it. Everybody knew that it was impossible for Catholics to have a university education under the present system. They could not enter the colleges or avail themselves of them. It was the duty of the Government to address themselves to that difficulty. It was their duty to see that by some means the Catholics of Ireland were placed on the same terms of equality with the Protestants in the matter of education. They had now the Protestants governing Trinity College and the Queen's College, and under these circumstances it was absurd to say that they were placed on an equality with the Protestants.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said he could only deal with the matter generally. He regretted that the Roman Catholic hierarchy did not approve of the University, so that contemporaries might be brought up side by side. However, as the hon. Member had said, they must take facts as they found them, and the Catholics had shown their absolute sincerity by refusing to allow their children to attend the colleges. No one who knew Ireland could deny the difficulty of the problem. He himself, in the short time he had been in Ireland, had to recognise it. It was his unfortunate lot to have to dispense a great deal of patronage. It had been his desire that that patronage should be shared to an equal extent between Protestants and Catholics, but he was certain that everyone in his position had felt the difficulty of finding Catholics who were fit to hold these positions, and the difficulty was largely due to the absence of a Catholic University education. That was a proposition which no one could deny. Most of the endeavours to solve the question had, he was afraid, been failures, which had brought more or less discredit on those who had attempted its solution. He did not know if he was to try and solve it that he should be more fortunate than those who had preceded him. He was not in a position to pledge the Government in this matter; but he repeated that, so far as he personally was concerned, he should be glad to try and make a solution of the problem, and it would be a great pride to him if, before he ceased to hold the office he now held, he could feel that even some step had been taken towards the solution of a problem which, he was certain, was intimately bound up with the future prosperity of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. MACNEILL

had heard with pride the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but remarked that at the same time there must be some limit to the patience of the Irish people. The Chief Secretary spoke of a future Catholic University as a thing to be hoped for—as a pious inspiration. But in August, 1889, the present First Lord of the Treasury promised the Irish Members, in language which would admit of no equivocation, that a Catholic University should be a primary matter with the Conservative Government. At the time he made that promise it was near the end of the then Parliament. But the Chief Secretary was now at the beginning of an Administration, and had great facilities and power. A Catholic University could easily be founded, and if founded on the same revenue as Trinity College he had no doubt of its success. The only Protestant institution that had been prosperous in Ireland had been Dublin University. The revenues of that great University were less than the revenues of two or three of the ordinary colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, and when such a success could be achieved with a University founded wholly in favour of the minority, what could be done with a University founded in favour of the majority? The hon. Member for East Mayo had stated the absolute demand of his co-religionists that there should be a teaching college in Dublin equal in power and emoluments to Trinity College in Dublin. So far as the mechanism was concerned, it was quite ready to the hon. Gentleman's hands. All he had got to do was to add a second College to Dublin University, to which the Catholics could go with sympathy, and find a Catholic atmosphere, with nothing at all in the studies derogatory in tone and sentiment to their religion. Let them have a college in which Catholic priests were Professors just as Protestant clergymen were in Trinity College. No body of men had a higher claim to teach the Catholics than had the Catholic priests. They had simply a genius for teaching. Referring to the Colleges of Galway and Cork, he said they had every appliance ready to their hand; a magnificent staff of professors and beautiful class rooms and buildings, but these colleges were not administered sympathetically in regard to the mass of the surrounding population, who were Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman, without the necessity of passing any Act, could easily manage to convert these colleges into denominational colleges in the same sense in which Trinity College was denominational, and if that were done the success of Queen's College, Galway, all through Connaught, and of Queen's College, Cork, all through Minister, would be as great as was the success of the Belfast College throughout the Presbyterian and Protestant element in Ireland. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Belfast College was a Presbyterian? [Mr. W. JOHNSTON: "We are all proud of him."] He should be glad, in the same way, to see the President of Galway or Cork College a Catholic priest. He admitted that theoretically Trinity College was practically open to everyone, but it had, in reality, always been an exceedingly Protestant institution. He would ask the Government to form this subject of University education into some practical scheme, and not to rest content with the expression of a mere pious opinion.

MR. WOLFF

did not think even hon. Gentlemen opposite would accuse him of having any very narrow sectarian views. If he could get all the young men in Ireland educated in Protestant colleges he would do so, but failing that he would prefer to have them educated as good Catholics. He denied that the Queen's College in Belfast was entirely a Presbyterian college. There was nothing on earth to prevent Catholics going there. If the Presbyterian doctrine was taught there, or if the atmosphere generally were Presbyterian and would in any way interfere with Catholics, he would say that hon. Gentlemen opposite were right; but the grievance that hon. Gentlemen raised was that no religion whatever was taught there. He thought education in Ireland ought to be strictly non-sectarian. He could not help thinking that it said very little for the opinion hon. Gentlemen had of their own faith, if they were afraid of their young men going for a few hours a day to a college in which their religion was not taught. The Queen's College in Belfast had been a very successful college, but the colleges in Cork and Galway had failed, not through any fault of their teaching staff or professors, but simply because the Roman Catholic clergy would not allow their young men to go to any college whatever of which they had not the entire control in their own hands. ["No, no!"] Then why did they not go?

MR. MACNEILL

Because they didn't choose to.

MR. DILLON

I want to know if the Queen's College at Belfast had none but Catholic professors, how many Presbyterians would go there?

MR. WOLFF

said that was a question which he could not answer, but he did not think the question of the religion of the professors should be taken into account. If the University education did not succeed, the fault did not lie with the Government; it lay entirely with the Catholics, who would have nothing to do with any college of which they had not the entire control.

MR. FLYNN

asked whether the hon. Gentleman had ever heard of the Mansfield College in Oxford?

MR. WOLFF

Was that college founded by the Government?

MR. FLYNN

contended that did not affect the question. He agreed that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was conciliatory, and one might have thought it sympathetic if some of them on those Benches had not remembered that they heard exactly the same speech seven years ago uttered by his distinguished brother when he was Chief Secretary. The First Lord of the Treasury then said:— I do not deny that I regret that the Roman Catholic clergy have felt it their duty to discourage members of their religion from taking full advantage of the Queen's College in Galway, or of Trinity College, Dublin, which is now open to every denomination. But in this matter regrets are vain things, and we have to take facts as we find them. I am afraid it is perfectly clear that nothing which has hitherto been done will really meet the wants and wishes of the Roman Catholic population in Ireland. That being so, we have no alternative but to try to devise some scheme by which the wants of the Catholic population shall be met other than that which at present has been attempted. I do not think that this would be the proper time for me to suggest even in outline the main lines of what the scheme ought to be, but we ought to make some attempt, if possible, to carry out a scheme of the kind I have indicated. He was afraid they had not advanced very far on that road since that time. They often heard of a certain place being paved with good intentions. The floor of that House was littered with the promises and good intentions of Conservative Governments towards Ireland, and he supposed they were as far away from a Catholic University in Ireland, so far as the Government were concerned, as they were seven years ago. The hon. Member opposite asked if they would be able to find the funds, but he would remind the hon. Gentleman that if they took into their hands the whole system of Irish education, primary, secondary, and higher, and if they gave them no voice in its management and administration, then they could not turn round and ask them to find the money to carry out a scheme which they were bound to carry out. If they believed that University education was a good thing, then the Government were bound to turn an attentive ear to the advice of those who were competent to give advice from their knowledge of the feelings and wants of Ireland. They were all heartily glad to hear of the great success of Queen's College, Belfast. They thoroughly shared the pride of hon. Members opposite in that fact. The Queen's College in Cork, with which he was acquainted, had not been a failure, far from it, but it had developed into a huge medical school. There was a little art, and there was a little bit of engineering, but for all practical purposes that beautiful edifice, kept up at an enormous expense, was practically nothing' but a huge medical school, and as a University it was a ghastly failure. If at Oxford, an institution of so many years standing, it was possible to have a comparatively modernised system like Unitarianism or Free Church, it ought not to be difficult for the Government of the day, if they were sympathetic or studied the wants and feelings of the people of Ireland, to deal with a question of this kind.

* MR. THOMPSON SHARPE (Kensington, N.)

desired to associate himself with the appeals which had been made from the Benches opposite on behalf of their Roman Catholic friends in Ireland with reference to University education. He did so with the more freedom as an Irish Churchman representing a Metropolitan constituency. The University of Dublin, where he was educated, was the one institution of Ireland of which all Irishmen, without distinction of race, creed, or class, were proud. Holding such a unique position in that country, and governed by men of the highest intellectual calibre, it had been for generations open to all religious denominations. When he was an undergraduate in Trinity College, Roman Catholics and Dissenters were admitted to degrees. Since then the foundation had been thrown open to all, and many Roman Catholics had been elected to scholarships, fellowships, and professorships. There was not, he believed, a Roman Catholic Judge on the Bench who had not taken his degree at Trinity, Dublin. Then there was the other University—Queen's, now called the Royal University—founded by Sir Robert Peel, on the non-sectarian or undenominational basis, which was so popular 50 years ago. The colleges of Belfast, Cork and Galway had each had a sphere of great usefulness. But the fact remained as the Chief Secretary had admitted, the fact faced them at every turn—that the Irish Roman Catholics had not taken advantage of the existing Universities. This might be in part owing to social reasons, the Roman Catholics not being as able to bear the expense of giving their sons a college education as Churchmen and Presbyterians. But there was this admitted grievance—call it sentimental if they would—that the Roman Catholics did not approve, and would not largely avail themselves of, undenominational education. This great country could afford to be generous. The great Party now in power—this strong Government—could, if they set themselves to work, settle this question during their term of office, and give the Irish people a share of University education on lines which they could approve—[cheers]—and he should rejoice to see the Government take some steps to satisfy the legitimate wishes of their Catholic brethren, and give them such share in University education as would be satisfactory to them. [Loud cheers.]

MR. DILLON

said that, on behalf of the Roman Catholics of Ireland he thanked the hon. Member for the speech he had just made. [Cheers.] He had listened to the speech of the Chief Secretary that night with feelings of the greatest disappointment. They had retrograded in this matter. The tone of the Chief Secretary and First Lord of the Treasury on the occasion when this Vote was last before the House was much more hopeful than the speech they had heard that night. ["Hear, hear!"] What did the Chief Secretary say? He practically admitted the grievance, that an immense evil existed, and he said that his short residence in Ireland had brought keenly home to him the disabilities under which Irish Catholics laboured. The right hon. Gentleman added that he would feel it to be a great source of pride if, during his tenure of office, he could solve the problem, but that he despaired of doing so. That was the impression conveyed by his speech to Irish Members. He gave them no intimation that the Government had it seriously in their minds to face the problem. He did not know whether the Chief Secretary recollected the interesting and remarkable Debate that took place on the question of denominational education some years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College rose from the Treasury Bench, and, to the great surprise of the House, declared that he himself had always been in favour of granting full satisfaction to the wishes of the Irish Catholics in this regard, and that he would support any reasonable or just Measure for giving them University education. On that occasion it was made manifest that, if the governor of Ireland—whether he was a Liberal or a Conservative—would deal with the question, and would meet the representatives of the Irish people, the matter could be settled without difficulty.

* MR. JOHNSTON

It would break up the Conservative Party.

MR. DILLON

said that might be, but, if the hon. Member for South Belfast led the Opposition, how many did he think he would get out of the 102 Irish Members to support him? He did not think the hon. Member would get half a-dozen Members of the Irish Conservative Party to oppose any reasonable settlement of the question. The difficulty of settling the question arose from the same root from which had sprung all the difficulties with regard to Ireland, namely, that the Irish Government could not deal with Ireland in accordance with Irish sentiment, but must deal with it according to English prejudice. If the Chief Secretary could deal with the matter without fear of breaking up his Party—if he had a free hand in the matter, and could confer with Irish Catholics—he would be able to bring about a satisfactory settlement in a very short time. He would go as far as to say that he was perfectly confident that if the Chief Secretary could meet the representatives of the Irish Catholics in a room—if the right hon. Gentleman had plenipotentiary powers from the English people to deal with Irish notions and his own sense of justice—the whole difficulty could be settled in a few months. He repeated that the Chief Secretary admitted that the matter involved a great grievance; he had realised the fact that it was a grievance which had blasted the, lives of generations of Irish Catholics and young men growing up in Ireland, because they were debarred by conscientious scruples from entering the Protestant Universities of the country, and he would like to extend, and would be willing to extend, to them the privileges of University education in accordance with their religious convictions. The hon. Member for South Belfast invited the Irish Catholics to enter the Queen's College of Belfast, and other colleges, and he said that those colleges were as open to Catholics as they were to Protestants of the Church of Ireland. If they had all turned Protestants they could have all gone on the Church establishment before the Church was Disestablished, but in these matters the ultimate judge must be the conscience of the people—["Hear, hear!"]—and if for years and generations the Irish people had proved by their action and by their sacrifices that they had been labouring under the coercion of their conscientious convictions, no one had any right now to deny them their just demands in regard to religious education. The Irish people could not enjoy the privileges of University education as those privileges were now offered to them, with a quiet conscience, because Catholic parents believed that if they sent their children there they would place their faith in peril. They might he right or wrong in that, but one thing was certain—that you could not wean them from their conscientious convictions by placing them under disabilities. If Protestants thought them wrong, the only way to induce them to change their convictions was to let them have their way, and trust to the spread of education. ["Hear, hear!"] But to this end coercion was powerless. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Belfast, he would merely say that he believed that if the Queen's College of Belfast was stuffed by a set of Catholic professors the only result would be that the Presbyterian young men of the country would boycott the college. Would the hon. Member for South Belfast send any young man under his control to a college the professors of which were Roman Catholics? He would do nothing of the sort. What right, then, had he to suggest that the Catholics of Ireland should do what he would not do himself? It was idle to ask Catholics to go into the present colleges; they were Protestant colleges, there was a Protestant atmosphere there, and Catholics did not get fair play. Catholics did not, as the hon. Member asserted, demand colleges which should be under the control of the Catholic clergy, but they wanted colleges Catholic in the sense that the professors and managers should be Catholic, and that the whole atmosphere of the establishment should be in sympathy with the Catholic and Nationalist sentiment of the country.

* MR. HORACE PLUNKETT (Dublin Co., S.)

said the difficulty which confronted them was that on the opposite Benches there was a Catholic atmosphere and on the Government side there was a Protestant atmosphere, and if they sat up until 10 o'clock tomorrow hon. Gentlemen opposite would never get Gentlemen on the Government side to understand the Catholic atmosphere. [Mr. DILLON: "We did get one man;" and Mr. MACNEILL: "We shall never get you."] They had got him. He had lived among Catholics all his life and part of his family were Catholics, and therefore he thought he might claim to understand the Catholic position. He was as anxious as anyone could be that the question of the establishment of a Catholic University should be settled in a way that would satisfy the Catholics of Ireland, and he understood that the Leader of the House abided completely by his previous declarations on the subject—[THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"]—but he was not certain that the Catholics of Ireland were agreed as to the scheme which would be, in their view, a satisfactory solution of the question. It was a matter of common notoriety that no scheme so far had met with general acceptance in Ireland, and any Chief Secretary who should attempt to solve the question would have an extremely difficult task in deciding between the various views held by hon. Members representing Nationalist constituencies and by the Catholic clergy and laity. It was even within the bounds of possibility that a scheme might be adopted by the Chief Secretary and might receive a large amount of support in Ireland, and yet that in the end a Catholic University might be established to which Catholic students would refuse to go. He sympathised with hon. Members opposite in this matter, but did not think that any good would be done by prolonging a desultory discussion on the subject.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

appealed to the Committee to agree to the Vote. They had now had an interesting and, he thought, adequate discussion on this Vote, and he was sure hon. Members had no wish to sit up again until a very late hour. ["Hear, hear!"]

Vote agreed to.