CLAUSE 48. (Hansard, 20 May 1898)

MR. T. M. HEALY
I wish to enter my protest against the breach of faith by the Government in not keeping the promise made to us by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds when the Irish Education Act of 1892 was being passed. A distinct pledge was given by the right honourable Gentleman a few days before the Government went out of office that if the Irish Members allowed the Act of 1892 to pass the Government would provide for the case of the Christian Brothers. That pledge has never been carried out. The Government promised at the time that they would give facilities to the Christian Brothers and give them a grant. Now, that pledge 228 having been broken, the Government propose to make the rate apply as in this section. I do not intend to do more than make a protest against this undoubted breach of understanding on the part of the right honourable Gentleman. It may be that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds himself was not sufficiently long in office to have enabled him to carry out his pledge, but he was followed on two occasions by subsequent Chief Secretaries, and, whether they were Liberals or Conservatives, I protest against the failure to carry out this pledge. Now, I venture to say that, although compulsory education is supposed to exist in Ireland, there are not sufficient schools for the children to go to, except the Christian Brothers schools, and the result is that you will have no schools for the children to go to. There is no compulsion on the Christian Brothers to take these children into their schools, and the Government promised, if we would allow the Education Bill of 1892 to go through, that they would make provision for the Christian Brothers. They have not done that. The Government are now curing one mistake or slip in the Act, but they are doing nothing whatever towards carrying out the pledge of the right honourable Gendeman the Member for Leeds. Though I do not propose to divide the Committee on this clause, I will not allow it to pass without protest. When some honourable Gentlemen opposite demand that nobody should be allowed to vote unless he can read or write, you must remember that we have pressed again and again upon you the necessity of making adequate provision for teaching in our country, and that you, against the pledges of your own Ministers, have refused to do so.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I am not certain that this discussion is altogether relevant to the Bill, but I cannot accept the accuracy of the statement made by the honourable and learned Member as to the pledges that were given either in the time of my predecessor or since. It will be remembered that two years ago I made the offer of legislation, which would have enabled the Christian Brothers to get assistance from the State, while allowing them to carry on their own system of education in their own way, but that offer was not accepted by honourable Members opposite.

§ * MR. DILLON
The right honourable Gentleman says that this discussion is not relevant to the Bill. Then why does he introduce into the Bill this most contentious subject? He will probably remember that it was attempted to be introduced into the House in two or three Sessions, and was abandoned on the opposition of the Irish Members. The right honourable Gentleman says that his proposal two years ago was not accepted by this side. Sir, that proposal was condemned by the unanimous resolution of the Irish Roman Catholic bishops as entirely unworthy of acceptance. I think it was hardly candid for the right honourable Gentleman to state that his proposal was not accepted by honourable Members on this side, when the fact is that it was dropped by him after it had been unanimously condemned by the Roman Catholic bishops. The truth is the proposal was preposterous. The amount of assistance offered was ludicrously inadequate, and they would have been worse off than they were before, because the result would have conveyed to the people a false impression that they were receiving a large amount of assistance from the Government. At all events, I desire to join in the protest of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. This is an extremely contentious subject, and were it not for the lateness of the hour and the position in which this Bill is I think the discussion of this sub-section would be continued for a very long time indeed. However, possibly our best course is to content ourselves for the present with a strong protest against the 230 Government introducing the subject into the Bill, and to state that we shall take an early opportunity of raising this question.

§ MR. VESEY KNOX
I venture to hope that the Chief Secretary will not consider that he has done all that it is necessary for him to do, as head of the Irish Administration, when he made that offer two years ago of 10s. a head to the Irish Voluntary schools. He must not forget that since that offer was made legislation has been enacted for England which has raised the grant to English Voluntary schools to a figure very much beyond what he proposes now for Ireland. I admit that the two things are not absolutely identical; but still, having regard to the difficulties of the two countries, there is a grave similarity between the case of the Voluntary schools in England, which have got four-fifths of their funds now supported by the State, and the Voluntary schools in Ireland, which get nothing at all from the State. It shows how different influences control a Conservative Government in dealing with English affairs and Irish affairs.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I do not think the honourable Member's observations are relevant to this clause.

§ MR. VESEY KNOX
Of course, this matter is only relevant in this way: this clause introduces something into Irish education that has never been before. ["No, no!"] Taking into consideration the Act of 1892, that is the effect of the clause. Compulsory education was only introduced into the towns of Ireland after we had received an explicit promise from the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds, who was then Chief Secretary, that he would take steps to ensure that the Christian Brothers should get efficient financial assistance. The scheme was outlined between the right honourable Gentleman and Mr. Sexton, and there has never been any conflict as between him and Mr. Sexton as to it, as I urderstand the Bill was allowed to go through on that understanding. But the fact, remains that the Act, which this clause applies to the whole of Ireland, 231 country as well as towns, was only allowed to go through in the case of the towns on a promise which has not been kept. There was an offer of 10s. a head.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
Sir, I must ask your ruling as to whether the honourable Member is in order in discussing this point, especially in going into these details.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I have already informed the honourable Member that I thought he was going beyond the clause.

§ MR. VESEY KNOX
I have no wish, Sir, to transgress your ruling, and I will confine myself entirely to the situation in a case which might arise under this clause in one of the rural parts of Ireland—I do not say that there are many cases—where the Christian Brothers have now their schools. The effect of this clause will be in most rural places to apply compulsion. The effect will be in those rural places to compel a new school to be started, or else to compel the Christian Brothers to take in every child who presents himself. It will, therefore, increase the expenses and obligations of the society. They have taken upon themselves voluntarily a heavy burden, and the State will increase that burden by this clause. The Chief Secretary makes no reasonable proposal as to the State bearing any similar part of the cost to that which it bears in similar cases in England. I therefore think we have great ground to protest against the way in which neither Party in the State has thought it their duty to carry into effect the arrangement made when that Act was passed into law.