§ On the Order for the Third Reading of this Bill,
§ *MR. KNOX rose to call attention to one aspect of a matter which had been mentioned at Question time and had been the subject of a number of letters 1693 in the public press and notably one by the Archbishop of Dublin. The Bill included an item in a supplementary vote for fee-grants, and the point raised in the correspondence was the distribution of the total sum devoted to fee-grants as between Ireland and Great Britain. In the year 1891, the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought in his Free Education Measure for England; he proposed that 10s. per head should be paid for every child in average attendance at English schools. They asked that the same should be paid to Ireland and that they should get 10s. per scholar. The right hon. Gentleman had said that that was more than Ireland was entitled to; and he created a principle of his own, called the Probate Grant Principle, under which Ireland was to get 9 per cent., Scotland 11 per cent., and England 80 per cent., which was the proportion in which they contributed to the Imperial Revenue. The Irish Members had to bow to that decision, although under it they got £70,000 a year less than what they would have been entitled to under the 10s. per head arrangement. But, unfortunately, the Treasury did not stick to its bargain. In 1892, the Irish Education Act, establishing free education, was passed. It provided that Ireland should get a fee-grant of either £210,000 a year, or such other sum as Parliament might determine, having regard to the English fee-grant. In other words, it was understood that Ireland should receive nine-eightieths of what England received. But Ireland had not in any year received what she was entitled to under this arrangement. In 1892–93 they received £61,000 less than they ought to have received. In 1893 Ireland was entitled to £217,000, and received only £156,000, so that she was deprived of £61,000. In 1894 she was deprived of £31,000, and in 1895 of £33,000. After raising the point many times, he at last induced 1694 the late Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley) to admit frankly that Ireland was entitled to nine-eightieths of what England got. But even then the Treasury brought in a calculation which contained a mistake in arithmetic costing Ireland £9,000. A corrected Supplementary Estimate was also wrong, and Ireland was left with £3,500 short. It was scandalous that, when a solemn contract was made between the Irish Members and the English Chancellor of the Exchequer, it should be observed in no single one of four successive years. Ireland altogether had been deprived of £129,000, to which she was justly entitled, and he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to give his impartial consideration to the matter. There was a large surplus this year, and the Irish Members wished to catch it before it disappeared. It was a strange thing that a contract made as this contract had been between a Conservative Government and the Irish Members should have been broken as this contract had been.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,) Prestonsaid, the Act contained no provision of the kind stated by the hon. Gentleman. What the Act said was that either the sum of £210,000, or such other sum as Parliament should direct for the year, having regard to the English fee-grant, should be paid to Ireland. During the years up to 1894–5 the sum actually mentioned in the Act was so paid, and surely it was the fault, not of the Treasury, but of the Irish Members if, with the Act before them, they did not object to the sum they actually received. Having, however, studied the question impartially, he thought that, after all, the £210,000 was more in accordance with the equity of the case than the nine-eightieths to which the hon. Member laid claim. The £210,000 which was named in the Act was undoubtedly the nine-eightieths of the English fee grant, but in succeeding years the children attending the English schools 1695 increased more largely in number than they did in the Irish schools. Was it right, therefore, that Ireland should have her full grant increased for the children attending her schools in proportion to the great increase in the English schools, when there was no corresponding increase in the numbers attending Irish schools? But now he came to the present Government, and what had the present Government done? They were paying to Ireland nearly £35,000 more than was paid to Ireland in fee-grants last year, because they had carried out a promise of the late Government that Ireland should have nine-eightieths of the English fee-grant. They had gone further. Instead of basing that calculation upon the English fee-grant of last year, as the late Government did, they had consented that it should be based on the fee-grant of England of this year, which was considerably in excess of the fee-grant of England for last year. They had brought in a Supplementary Estimate of more than £9,000 in order to insure that Ireland should have the nine-eightieths of the original English grant of the current year. That in itself was a very considerable addition made to the Irish fee-grant by the present Government. The hon. Member had also contended, as he understood, that Ireland was entitled not only to the nine-eightieths of the original English fee-grant, but also to nine-eightieths of the supplementary grant. That was an entirely new point which was not brought before the late Government, and had not been brought before the present Government until quite recently. He could assure the hon. Member that fair and full attention would be given to the claim, with the full desire to do justice to what was the equitable claim of Ireland on the point.
§ MR. W. FIELDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hanbury) had adduced as one of the reasons why the Irish people had not got the full share of the grant was because in England the 1696 attendance of the children had vastly increased, and that the children in attendance in Ireland had not increased. The reason why the children in attendance had not increased in Ireland was because the compulsory clause of the Education Act could not be brought into force by reason of the fact that the Act was imperfect. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way next Session to introduce an amending Bill.
§ MR. J. C. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said, that if there had been any dereliction of duty, as was suggested by the Secretary to the Treasury, it was on the part of the National Commissioners of Education of Ireland, who, having all the machinery at their hand, ought to closely inquire into the allocation of a fair portion of the grant to Ireland. He would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1895 the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, in answer to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Knox), stated that the Treasury, on the representation of the Irish Government, had admitted the principle that under the Education Act of 1892 the Irish fee grant, instead of being a fixed grant, should increase with the increase of the English grant, bearing to the grant the proportion of 9 to 80, and that they had agreed to the increased amount asked for by the Education Commissioners. That was the whole case as laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day. What they wanted was that the Treasury should investigate the matter and refund to Ireland the sum which was admittedly deficient, and as compared with that to which Ireland was entitled. On the Vote on Account they would ask the Treasury to give the Question most careful consideration, and they would insist that the bargain then made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be carried out.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)pointed out that the present First Lord of the Admiralty brought in a Bill dealing with the question. What they wanted then 1697 was 10s. per head for the children in Scotland and Ireland, the same as was given in England, but they could not obtain this. In Scotland, during the first year they lost £16,000.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member will not be in order in discussing Scotch Education or the money granted to it.
§ DR. CLARKsaid that the Treasury now repudiated the arrangement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was 80 per cent. to England, 11 per cent. to Scotland and 9 per cent. to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was unfair and inequitable to pay that proportion, because the number of children in England had increased every year, while the number in Ireland had not.
§ Bill read 3a, and passed.