SUPPLY (CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES).

HC Deb 22 March 1906 vol 154 cc645-95

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.)

said that as he happened to be fortunate in the ballot it was his duty to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the provision for education in Ireland in all its branches (primary, secondary, and university) is insufficient and unsatisfactory, and that the interests of the Irish people have been and are suffering most ruinous injury from the long delay in applying a remedy." Just one year ago it was his lot to move a similar Motion dealing with university education; and, though only a short period had passed away, he confessed the changes in place, position, and condition were as great as if a quarter of a century had elapsed. He was glad of the change so far as it brought into the House a progressive and radical force, from whom Irishmen could expect more friendly consideration for their demands; but there was one disturbing thought for those who could be called old Members, and that was the wonderful improvement in strength and length of the speeches of new Members, who were overshadowing those who were there before. He had the knowledge himself that his Motion was to be seconded by one of the new Members who would acquit himself ably; and these considerations altogether created an uneasy feeling in the mind that was hard to get rid of. He had been thinking, therefore, whether he would adopt the method of using a jolt of silence instead of the half-dozen kicks in regard to educational matters in Ireland. There were, however, so many points to be stated that he supposed he should tackle some of them, and leave it to his colleague to supply the deficiencies as might be necessary. He would not trouble to ask them to decide whether it was the highest or the lowest rung in the educational ladder that was most defective. There were opinions both ways, but there was absolute unanimity on all sides that every part was unsound. That was the view of the Irish Party and the view of the Members led by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. The opinions on this question were the same when the hon. Member for South Belfast riveted the attention of his Queen's Island followers upon it, or when the hon. Member for West Kerry discoursed upon it down in Kerry where the Dingle railway dragged its slow length along. Even the hon. Member for North Louth, whose seat was untouched in the excitement of the last election, spoke for his Party in no uncertain voice upon these educational topics. Therefore, they were presenting a united demand to a new Chief Secretary and a new Government that could not be denied and ought not to be delayed. If they took the equivalent grants for education in Ireland, what did they find? At first they were to get the Goschen ration of England 80, Scotland 11, and Ireland 9; but it was never observed, though a promise was given that it should not be varied. After a lot of disputing an attendance ratio was fixed instead, though if that were adopted at first the proporton would have been England 80, Ireland 10.8. England's population, however, went up and Ireland's went down unfortunately, and they had lost accordingly over £260,000 in the last ten years. Even in the last Estimates they did not give Ireland nearly as much as England or Scotland per head of population. To make matters worse the equivalent grant was merged for sinister purposes in what was called the development grant, in order that it should be diverted from proper and necessary purposes; and the late Chief Secretary made it a defence for using the money for other purposes that he was asked by Irish Members to do so. The money was spent on broken-down landlords and broken-down railways, instead of in building up Irish education as it should be. For whom was the system of education necessary to be built up? For the children of to-day who would be the men and women of to-morrow. 28 per cent. of those children were under seven years of age, and, without doing it decently or openly, or after consultation with the managers, the parents, or the teachers, they inflicted serious injury on them under cover of the simple title of Rule 127 (b). What cared the Lords of the Treasury for the preservation of that "nicety of feeling and reserve for which Irish girls were remarkable" if an opportunity arose to save money due to Ireland? What did it matter to them if the morals and character of Irish boys were depreciated so long as the means were at hand for effecting "savings" out of Irish education? Then, what about the other 72 per cent. of children attending these primary schools? Was the teaching staff sufficient? Were the opportunities reasonable? Could the clever boy or girl go as far as ability would entitle them? He thought to these questions there would be an emphatic "No" from all quarters and sections of the public. Was there a bit of character building in the primary system and its methods? Certainly the fault could not be placed against the teachers, but against the methods. Who had charge of the primary education of the country? The Commissioners of National Education—four judges, five clergymen, ten gentlemen of no occupation, and Dr. Starkie. It had often been pointed out to the House that they were not responsible to Parliament or to anyone. Their meetings were secret, and Dr. Starkie was their mouthpiece. How fitted he was for the post let the following facts indicate. He went down to Belfast in September, 1902, to traduce and misrepresent the Catholic managers of Ireland. He acted as a Catholic himself to give substance to his statements. He sighed for independent and educated Catholic laymen, and gave an example of what might be expected from them if they resembled himself. For the entertainment of a number of strangers he indulged in criticisms and suggestions on matters connected with education which had only an academic interest in it. He (the speaker) would deal with only one point. It was a sample of the value of the whole. Dr. Starkie made some quotations from inspectors' reports. In one case the quotation he gave was— With a few auspicious exceptions, managers take no part in the working of the schools. The inspector from whose report these words were taken actually said two sentences before— The managers, as a body, show considerable interest in the welfare of the schools. Dr. Starkie deliberately omitted those words in order to discredit the Catholic managers of primary schools, and, as was shown clearly by Father John Curry, he was guilty of similar indecent and improper action of suppression throughout his address. Yet this shining example of truth, honesty, and politeness was the administrator in whose hands the fortune of the children and teachers of Ireland was retained. With him at the head of an unrepresentative and irresponsible board there was naturally no progress on proper lines in primary education. They asked that the national schools should be models of perfection, and yet, where they gave an English headmaster 30s., and a headmaster in Scotland 35s., the Irishman only got 20s. Where they gave an assistant 24s. in England they gave him 20s. in Ireland, and into the bargain made rules to destroy his position altogether. They asked the Irish teacher to be a paragon with a salary beginning at £56 for men and £44 for women, and they made rules that were servile in their spirit and intentions. They then laid down a system of grading as to promotion, which it was difficult for the teacher to surmount. The poor assistant teacher was left in a hopeless position. Little wonder that out of the 495 who left the teaching body in 1904 the number who emigrated or sought other positions was 188 and the number who died 172. For all this state of muddle and confusion the country had to pay for administration in Ireland 6s. 6d. for every 3s. 10d. spent in Scotland and 3s. in England. What the Irish people wanted to know was what plan of action the Chief Secretary proposed to follow to remedy these things. How was he going to construct a ladder whereby the child of ability, whether rich or poor, could go from the primary school to the University? The right hon. Gentleman had no right to ask Irish representatives for a plan. His Government undertook the administration of Ireland and the duty was theirs. Irish Members could ask the right hon. Gentleman, however, to state definitely if he proposed to reform the Board of Education and Dr Starkie, and how he was to do it They could ask him how he was going to deal with the equivalent grant and to secure to Ireland the share she was fairly entitled to. That was a most important item as, in the first place, while England and Scotland got their full share, Ireland was allowed to suffer; and even what Ireland got was given to purposes other than education altogether. Surely if the very pivot of the system was to work it could only be by offering decent salaries to induce men to work and to draw others towards the high profession of teaching. What was the right hon. Gentleman going to do about the pension fund of the teachers? The teachers had been led into believing that their future was secure, but the House would judge of the shock to the 13,000 teachers when they learned that though premiums were trebled and gratuities abolished twenty-four years service brought one of their number a pension of £4 6s. 8d. per year. It was not surprising to hear the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the last Government admitting that there were cases of hardship or to see the late Irish Solicitor-General scratching his head to invent an explanation of his advice to the teachers that their bargain with the Treasury would hold good in a Court of Law. An English teacher got ten times as much in pension as an Irish teacher. The thing in all its aspects was glaring and unsound. How did the Chief Secretary propose to deal with this question of pensions they were all desirous to know? Then there was the question of the civil rights of teachers. In England teachers could become magistrates, town councillors, and even Members of Parliament —there was no limit to their legitimate ambition. In Ireland they could do nothing but endeavour as the rule said, "to be imbued with a spirit of peace, of obedience to the law, and loyalty to the Sovereign; and to avoid fairs, markets, and meetings, and above all political meetings, and abstain from controversy." The English teacher could have his intelligence widened by taking a proper part in every legitimate public duty. The Irish teacher was locked up in a circle of rules as ridiculous and injurious as could be framed. Would the right hon. Gentleman sweep them away and raise a deadweight from a body of men on whom an undeserved and improper restriction was placed, the effects of which were harmful not only to themselves but to the community? Imagine the absurdity of a rule which prevented Mr. Maher, the President of the Teachers' Organisation, from becoming a member of a local education committee, while third grade teachers in Birmingham could engage in discussions about trade or engage in municipal administration in Glasgow? When this question was last discussed the last Chief Secretary saw merit in suggestions about conveyances for school children, his predecessor saw a gleam of light in technical instruction. Something better than trifles such as these were wanted—something more radical than trifles in dealing with an important subject. He had now known three Chief Secretaries, and the other day he heard it said of them— The first in plenitude of words surpassed, The next was no wise equal to the last; A third he came and this at least is true, He's surely better than the former two. Well, now was the day and now was the hour for the right hon. Gentleman to take his courage in his hands. The other day he spoke to a deputation in the Irish language. Would the right hon. Gentleman now tell them that it was not merely lip service, but an indication of a real friendship for the Irish language and customs, and that he would do his part in restoring the language in the schools of Ireland to the place it ought to occupy? In London a few days ago he had evidence of the spirit of those who were taking the subject in hand, and they wanted some information from the Chief Secretary as to how it was to be treated in the future. What was the good of striving to build up technical and higher education on a bad foundation? No doubt, in spite of the efforts of the originators and administrators of primary education in Ireland, good had been got out of it, but that was because, as the Royal Commission said, Ireland had within its shores a people with a genuine love for learning and great natural ability. Why not give them the means and the facilities for exercising these qualities to the full? What was the good of spending thousands on Sir Horace Plunkett's Department, the only result of which was a controversy between the hon. Member for South Donegal and himself as to how much was spent in patronage? What was the good of making the existence of intermediate schools difficult by restrictions and drawbacks that were unnecessary and unwise? Without any notice they reduced the intermediate grant after allowing managers to go to extraordinary expense. The Intermediate Board said that there had been a fall of customs and excise—that was to say less drink had been consumed, and consequently Ireland was to have less money for education as she spent less in drink. A preposterous proposition surely, but not less so than many others similarly advanced in relation to Irish education. And when the management pointed out to the Board a means of relief their appeal was disregarded. Then just for the fun of the thing the Board withheld exhibitions to which in 1905 the middle grade were entitled, an arrangement by which he was told the largest intermediate school in Kerry and one of the best in Ireland lost £200 together. He might go on stating point after point about primary and secondary education, showing they were in a bad state, but they were not a bit worse off than higher education. It was admitted by every Chief Secretary that Ireland ever had, saving of course Mr. Jackson and the temporary Member for South Dublin, that University education was in need of reform. The present Secretary of State for War said last year— It was an urgent question; and the condition of primary, secondary, and university education in Ireland was simply deplorable. Well he had other urgent and deplorable questions on hand at present, but what had the Chief Secretary to propose to remedy the conditions described by his colleague? How far and how soon would he apply a remedy? One central idea should fix itself in his mind in dealing with these questions, and it was this—the Irish people preferred simple faith to Norman blood—or University education. It was no good trying to separate religion and education in Ireland—they did not want it and they would not have it. Wellington wrote— If you educate men without religion you make them clever devils. They did not want any more clever devils of the type of Dr. Starkie in Ireland—there was no room for them. It was all nonsense to say that because the writer of the immortal ballad of "Who fears to speak of '98" walked through Trinity, the "Traill of the Carson" was not over it all. The Catholics and Nationalists had not time to wait till they were dead for the benefits of higher education. They wanted it now, and whilst they would look with satisfaction on any effort to settle the revenues, the representation and the regulations of the University of Dublin, they demanded an intellectual headquarters for the faith, the intellect, the language, and the literature of Ireland. They wanted the form of their motherland lifted up out of the ashes and the poverty where her beauty lay hidden and restored to her ancient position—Insula sanctorum et doctorum. They believed that could be done only by a revolution in the Government of Ireland, but in the meantime they wanted the pathways of progress cleared—the primary schools made bright and cheerful and efficient, and the teachers properly dealt with; the secondary schools developed and made suitable; and the University created on proper and necessary lines. The Chief Secretary could turn from the study of Bulgarian to Hibernian atrocities and at every point find them staring him straight in the face. The right hon. Gentleman might ask how could it all be done—where was the money to come from? He knew better than any of them the waste and ridiculous excess of Irish administration generally. Look at the lawyers, from the Lord Chief Justice, who could smile and smile and be Lord Chief Justice still, down to the Crown prosecutor in every town. His opportunities for reform were great. The police force gave him another field to reap, and the horde of Land Commissioners who, whilst ignorant of the difference between oats and barley, could easily detect the change from whisky to water, and every other department under his control afforded him scope to do anything and everything. Would he make the effort in a genuine and earnest way? If he did he would have the sympathy and encouragement of the people, who were quick to recognise friendly help when freely given. There was a current of opinion flowing in Ireland, deep but strong, between the banks on either side. It went towards the haven of a real Irish nation, and could not be forced back. Let not the right hon. Gentleman try any of the pitchfork pranks of his predecessors upon its waters; but sail along upon its bosom in the confidence that it would carry him onward towards solid ground, on which he could lay the foundations of a better and happier Ireland.

MR. RICHARD HAZLETON (Galway, N.)

in seconding the Motion said it was a comprehensive one, covering, as it did, the whole field of education in Ireland. The statement it contained could not with truth be contradicted and the plea for reform which it put forward could not with justice be denied. This subject had been discussed over and over again in this House, and the urgent necessity for reform had been admitted by successive Governments, Liberal and Unionist alike, and yet little or nothing had been done in the direction of securing these reforms and removing the grievance which had so long hampered and restricted the progress of education in Ireland. The House might think that the fact that their grievance had been admitted on previous occasions—and no doubt it would be admitted again to-day by the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government—was to a certain extent satisfactory. He would point out that that fact was only an additional cause for irritation, because when the grievance was admitted on all sides they naturally and rightly expected that some effort would be made to remedy it. Until now the treatment of Irish questions in this House had seemed to him somewhat similar to the treatment meted out to a certain motorist not long ago who was summoned before a bench of hostile magistrates for driving at a greater speed than thirty miles an hour. He proved to demonstration that his car was incapable of travelling at a higher rate than ten miles an hour, but the presiding magistrate, after consulting with his colleagues, gravely informed him that although the bench admitted that he had proved his case they felt called upon to fine him 30s. and costs for loitering. When Ireland made an unanswerable case for justice, as she had done in connection with the subject of education, equally with other great questions such as financial reform and self-government, there had always been some excuse found for withholding from her that justice to which she was entitled. As to Irish university education, for instance, the present Leader of the Opposition, when occupying the position of Prime Minister, admitted the case for the establishment of a university in Ireland which would be acceptable to the great majority of the people. The right hon. Gentleman advocated it; he sent the great grandson of Lord Edmund Fitzgerald to Dublin Castle; he endorsed the appointment of Sir Antony Macdonnell under conditions which had yet to be fully disclosed; and yet he had excused himself from action on the preposterous ground that he and his Government could do nothing in the matter without the approbation of the little clique of reactionary Orangemen, who had no right to claim that they spoke for Ulster, or, as the hon. Member for West Belfast had shown, for the city of Belfast itself. If he had referred to the treatment which Ireland had received from the Imperial Parliament in the past, it was because he wished hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand that they expected something very different now. They welcomed sympathy when it was sincere, but they were not going to be satisfied with it. What they wanted was action. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on the subject of old - age pensions the other evening enumerated a few of the chief things which this House had done since it came together after the general election. The House seemed rather to enjoy listening to a recital of its own achievements. Perhaps it was even proud of them. He would not presume to criticise the House on that score, but he hoped there would be in this House, so far as Ireland was concerned, a closer association of theory and practice, of promise and performance, than they had met with in the past. He would confine himself to the broad outlines connected with the question of education without going into details, financial or otherwise. His hon. friend who proposed the Resolution dealt with the financial grievance that primary education had been subjected to. He showed the grievances under which the national school teachers had suffered in Ireland, and he showed the non representative character of the Board which controlled national education in Ireland. There would be no doubt that next in urgency and importance to some settlement of the University question which would be satisfactory to the majority of the people of Ireland, was the necessity of better provision for, and of a radical alteration in, the system of primary education. But over and above the University question, the primary education question, the intermediate or technical education question, and apart altogether from the details of finance or of systems or methods, there was one great question on which any English Government which approached this question had got first of all to make up its mind, and that was—Is education in Ireland to be controlled and conducted on Irish lines and in accordance with Irish ideas, or is it not? Unless that principle were conceded and allowed to be carried into effect, if it rested with him he would tear to shreds any University Bill or proposals for so-called reform which might be brought forward from any quarter of the House. Hon. Members representing Great Britain might or might not know that owing mainly to what had been called the Irish revival which had been going on in Ireland for the past decade, but was still in its infancy, the whole aspect of this education question had undergone a material alteration, amounting practically to a revolution. He did not expect hon. Members to understand the altered situation. He said that without any disrespect. It was one of the inevitable consequences, where one nation was governed against its will by anothor, and seeing that Irishmen had been trying without success for years to get the National Board of Education to understand this alteration, he was not going to attempt to explain it to this House within the short time at his disposal to-day. The fact remained that if in dealing with this subject the Government were to ignore that revival—he hoped and believed they would not—all their efforts and all their energies would be wasted to no good purpose whatever. There were, however, one or two points which he would like to make clear to the House. If there was one thing more than another which Ireland was absolutely determined on it was that for the future the education of its youth must, in the broadest sense of the words, be Irish and national. That under existing systems had been all but impossible. Anything that had been done in the desired direction had been done in spite of the existing conditions. The aim of the Board of Intermediate Education and the Board of National Education would appear to be not to turn out good Irish citizens educationally, but automatic machines ignorant of everything that concerned their own country, its language, history, literature, traditions, industries, and resources. He would give the House one or two examples of what he meant. Until quite recently hundreds and thousands of children were brought up in Ireland absolutely ignorant of the fact that there was such a thing as the Irish language, although it was the spoken language of the people to-day over vast tracts of the country. When the Gaelic League stepped in and succeeded to a limited extent in getting it taught in some of the schools as an extra subject, the National Board, in conspiracy with the late Government and with the Treasury, last year sought to stamp it out by withdrawing the miserable £12,000 a year which the extra teaching of Irish involved. Children who did not know a word of English were being taught by teachers who not only did not know but would not learn one word of Irish; and it was a common practice in many districts for the unfortunate children to be severely punished for daring to speak the only language they knew well or could properly understand. Examples without number might be given to prove all that he had put forward, and to show the rotttenness of the system which was miscalled education in Ireland. Although it might be said that things were not so bad now as they were, he said that the system under which such things were possible stood self-evidently condemned. The National Education Board had been tried and found wanting. It had shown itself to be out of touch with the sympathies of the Irish people. It had proved itself to be incapable of understanding the true educational needs of the country. No one had a good word to say for it. The teachers were against it. Their status and their financial prospects had been seriously impaired by the unfair rules imposed upon them in the performance of their duties. The school managers were against the Board; the parents and every public body in Ireland was against it; and he did hope that when the Irish Government came to make an inquiry into its action, it would also be against the Board. The money difficulty was the great crux of the situation. Education in Ireland had been starved for want of financial support. They did not want extravagant liberality in that regard; but only the purest financial justice which they had hitherto not received. They were, at least, entitled to claim proportionate treatment with England and Scotland. Not only, however, had they not received the money intended for educational purposes, but these moneys had been diverted into other channels. The Development Grant was the most glaring instance of that. Apart from the injustice involved in the distribution of the Irish Development Grant and the injustice done to Irish education, he contended that this financial juggling was a serious thing in itself. If a municipal body ventured to do the same thing, the long arm of the law would be brought down upon it by the Local Government Board, and if a private corporation were discovered employing such methods, those responsible would very soon find themselves in the dock, facing a very serious charge. It had been said that one could drive a coach and four through any Act of Parliament. That had been done in Ireland, not only in regard to Acts of Parliament, but in regard to the Constitution itself; but he trusted that such practices would not be continued under a democratic and Liberal Administration. This financial grievance clamoured for redress. His hon. friend had referred to the financial injustice inflicted on Ireland in regard to the case of the intermediate schools. They in Ireland had once been told that if they drank less their taxation would be less. He had little faith in that Shylock-like argument, because last year, owing to the increasing sobriety of the people of Ireland, the income from the local taxation duties for intermediate education had suffered a loss of £6,000. Was that an encouragement to sobriety? He believed that they could not have progress in Ireland without temperance; but he protested in the strongest possible manner against a system by which they could not have education in Ireland without drink. They asked that Ireland should receive the money, no more and no less, that she was entitled to for educational purposes. They asked that the present system of robbing Peter to pay Paul should cease, and that the money—their own money—intended for a specific object should be devoted to that object and no other. They asked that the education of the youth of Ireland should be Irish, and not, as at present, out of accord with the feelings and sentiments of the great majority of the people of Ireland. They asked that a change should be made in the constitution of the present non-representative and anti-Irish Boards of Education, whose conception of their duty seemed to be not to educate the children, but to flout, outrage, and insult the deliberately expressed public opinion of Ireland. Solong as these Boards in Ireland, not responsible to any one but themselves, but always subservient to the whims of the Executive, were allowed to play fast and loose with these great interests entrusted to their charge, and with which the well being of the Irish nation was so inseparably bound up, so long must true educational progress in Ireland be hampered and restricted and delayed. Finally, they asked that England should give them those facilities for higher education which were now withheld from their people, without which they could not hope to develop to their full extent for their own benefit and for the benefit of the land they loved those natural abilities and those intellectual gifts with which in such a high degree so many of them had been blessed. Or else they asked—and surely it was not an unreasonable request—that if the Government would not settle these problems for the Irish people, they would acknowledge their right and extend to them the power to settle them for themselves.

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, the provision for education in Ireland in all its branches (primary, secondary, and University) is insufficient and unsatisfactory, and that the interests of the Irish people have been and are suffering most ruinous injury from the long delay in applying a remedy'—(Mr. Murphy)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. BUTCHER (Cambridge University)

said that as an Irishman profoundly interested in Irish education and profoundly dissatisfied with the present system of education in that country, he wished to take part in the debate. He found very little to quarrel with in the words of the Resolution which had been moved, but he must say he found himself in disagreement with a great deal that had been said by the hon. Member for East Kerry. He agreed with him, however, concerning many of the grievances of the teachers, as regards their scale of salaries and pensions. He would add that they bore burdens which were not laid on teachers in any other part of the world. For instance, they were often obliged to contribute out of their small salaries £5 or £6 a year for the maintenance of the school fabric. Much indeed was amiss in primary education, more in University education, and most of all in secondary education. He could not, however, pass over the sharp attack which had been made upon two public servants of great distinction. One of these was Dr. Starkie, who by his courage and reforming energy had done more for primary and secondary education in Ireland than had been done by anybody else in the last fifty years. The other was Sir Horace Plunkett, whose signal and disinterested patriotism had been shown in a life devoted, without respect to party, to the good of Ireland. While there was need of reform in all parts of the educational system in Ireland, yet he thought that any thorough reform must begin at the top. It was from that point of view he wished to say something about University education. The moment was in some respects favourable in this regard, as there appeared to be in Ireland an awakening of new intellectual life, and a revival of that native love of learning which had been long dormant, but never extinguished. He went back first to the Catholic Relief Act of 1793, which opened the degrees of Trinity College to Roman Catholics. But that was only one portion of a great scheme. Had it been carried in its entirety, he did not think that they would have been debating the question of University education in Ireland to-day. A part only of that great emancipating measure was carried; still it was noteworthy that in the struggle for Catholic emancipation which followed, the representatives of Trinity College, Dublin, were among the supporters of the movement, and Plunket was its foremost champion. For fifty years and more after the Union almost every Catholic of distinction was educated at Trinity College, and with the tacit sanction of the Church. These included Judges, leaders of the Bar, leaders in medicine, and there was even one Catholic graduate of Trinity who became Archbishop of Cashel. During the first part of the nineteenth century it might safely be said that so far as the upper classes or the upper professional classes were concerned, religious barriers were being broken down and there was in progress a movement towards the fusion of different denominations. The effect of this on public life was a sweetening and a liberalising influence. He came next to the period beginning with the year 1845, when Sir Robert Peel brought in his measure for creating the Queen's Colleges. That measure was at the outset received with divided opinion in Ireland. Catholic opinion was divided, and even among the bishops many were in favour of it. The Young Ireland party were for it, and he would like to read to the House an extract from a speech by T. O. Davis, the poet, in reply to O'Connell's son. They were words which seemed still to ring in their ears the moment they touched upon the question of an Irish University. Davis said— Will you take the boys of Ireland in their earliest youth, and deepen the differences between them; will you sedulously exclude them from knowing the virtues, the genius, the spirit, the affections of each other? If you do, you will vainly hope that they who are carefully separated in youth will be united in manhood and stand together for their country. Looking back in the cool retrospect of history upon that measure of Sir Robert Peel's, he believed that a little more compromise in the House of Commons and also in Ireland would have given to the Catholics of Ireland a University education which they could well have accepted. He wished to quote some words from the eloquent and masterly evidence given by Dr. O'Dwyer before the last Commission— I have no doubt from reading the debates in Parliament in 1845 that it was the intention of Sir Robert Peel to set up in Ireland in substance a system of education pretty much like that which we are asking now. He went on to say that— My present belief is that if we could get now at what was in Sir Robert Peel's mind, and compare it with the offer that Mr. Balfour has made, there would not be a hair's breadth of difference between them. But the synod of Thurles in 1850 pronounced against the scheme by a majority of one, and when once the ban of the Church went out against the "godless" colleges, the condemnation of "mixed education" was carried out with strict and fatal consistency against Trinity College. Henceforth the religious and social cleavage in Ireland became more marked. Cardinal Cullen's influence, strongly ultramontane, accentuated the distinctions between creeds and classes. In 1873 already society was divided into two hostile camps, with, as some one has said, "clerical sentinels pacing up and down between them." In 1873 Fawcett's Bill was brought in. They all knew what that Bill was, and how it opened up all posts of honour and emolument, fellowships and scholarships to Catholics and all others. He would just like to add that it was brought in not merely with the acquiescence, but at the instance of Trinity College. But Fawcett's measure was too late to yield the hoped for results. And since 1873 the gap had rather widened, and the number of Catholics who went to Trinity College had been dwindling, and there had been a growing divergence between two ideals of University education—the Catholic and the more modern ideal. Chief Baron Palles, himself a Catholic and educated at Trinity College, had witnessed before the Royal Commission that— The relations between Catholic and Protestant are not as cordial as they were some fifty years ago, and a Methodist witness, Sir William Whitla, said— The early friendships which were often formed in olden days are now no more…and Catholic and Protestant youths are brought up without knowing each other, and with every probability that they will come to regard each other as natural enemies. One could therefore understand why it was that in 1903 the latest offers made by Trinity had been rejected by the Roman Catholic authorities. The Board offered to provide religious teaching on exactly the same terms as it was given to members of the Church of Ireland and to Presbyterian students. They proposed that the teachers should be nominated by Cardinal Logue or by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin. They consented to the erection of a Roman Catholic chapel within the precincts of Trinity College if sufficient funds were provided, and to grant similar privileges to Roman Catholic divinity students as the divinity students of the Church of Ireland. Cardinal Logue's answer was brief and decisive— I can be no party to the arrangement proposed. All this brought them face to face with the question, Could this breach be healed?

How singular was the contrast between the action of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland and its action in other parts of the world. In Germany the denominations met together within the Universities by means of dual chairs, separate faculties of theology, and other arrangements not unlike those now offered within the walls of Trinity. Formerly in the United States Roman Catholic students were, if not forbidden, yet discouraged from attending Harvard University. But within recent years the voice of the laymen and of the younger clergy became articulate upon this question, and now Harvard was as free and open to the Roman Catholics as any university elsewhere. It was not necessary to cross the Atlantic for illustrations. Let hon. Members look at what had happened at Oxford and Cambridge. Up to 1895 the same warnings were issued, the same perils pointed out to Roman Catholic students proposing to go there as to those proposing to go to Trinity. But laymen made their voices heard and after a severe struggle within the Church the petition of the laymen was granted, and young Roman Catholics have now free access to any of the colleges in Oxford or Cambridge. They were free to attend any lectures on philosophy or history or other subjects hithereto counted "dangerous." And he was told that the Church authorities were entirely satisfied, and said that the faith and morals of the students were in no way imperilled. A year ago he attended a Hibernian Club's dinner at Cambridge, where the undergraduates included Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Roman Catholics. They had a very pleasant evening. But he came away from the dinner in a state of profound discouragement and dejection, for two questions crossed his mind. One was this: Is it necessary that young Irishmen must cross the water and come to England if they wish to know and to understand and to respect one another? There in Oxford and Cambridge they met and mingled in one common life, engaged in debates, attended lectures, fraternised in clubs, and went back to Ireland better citizens and more patriotic Irishmen, because they had learned to understand one another instead of being brought up, as in Ireland, in a paralysing atmosphere of mistrust and misrepresentation. The other reflection that came to his mind was: Can it be right and reasonable that if an Irishman, had sufficient money to leave his own country and come to England, he should be able to enter an English University with the sanction of his Church, whereas if he attended such lectures in Ireland he would do so, if not under the ban of the Church, certainly without its blessing? Bishop O'Dwyer, when asked before the Commission whether there was any hope within a time that could be foreseen of similar concessions being extended to Roman Catholic laymen in Ireland, replied— If it is asked is there any probability that within a reasonable time we will shift our ground as regards the mass of the Catholic people who want education, there is not the slightest probability of it. In his opinion it was futile to attempt any solution of this University question which did not go on lines that would be approved by the Homan Catholic bishops. But in saying this he was far from thinking that the last word had already been spoken. He was not one of those who said, "There is Trinity College: its doors are open: if you will not enter, the fault is your own." They could not deal in that way with the religious sentiments of three-fourths of a nation. Nor could they say, "Wait till that sentiment changes." Ireland could not afford to wait. He himself had long hoped that within the walls of Trinity itself the solution of this problem might be found, but there were few, however sanguine, who would cling to that hope to-day. He accepted the facts as they stood and looked them in the face. But he still thought that this House ought not and would not despair of finding a solution, though it might be that hon. Members would have to modify and reconsider some cherished views of educational policy. Personally, he did not shrink from the words "Catholic College," or "University." For his own part in any scheme put forward he should look to one thing only, and that was whether in that scheme there was a hope of a University which would work on something like true academic lines. The problem was one of paramount and pressing importance to Ireland, and ought not to be shelved. Outside Trinity College what was there for Irish Catholics in the shape of University education? They had the Royal University, founded in 1879, endowed with £20,000 a year. That University was a political makeshift which Lord Beaconsfield resorted to because he could not get a direct endowment for Roman Catholic education. It had two fatal defects. First it had a defect which was inherent in all purely examining Universities, namely, that examination was entirely divorced from teaching; and that in itself was sufficient to condemn the University. An incidental defect was that for some reason or other, rightly or wrongly, it did not command public confidence as regards its results. The second defect was graver, and resided in its constitution. Every senator who was a Protestant must be balanced by another who was a Catholic. The basis of the system was one of denominational equilibrium. It was strictly carried out, this curious principle of an even balance of religious creeds. At the head of affairs were two secretaries, one a Protestant and the other a Catholic, and the system was so perfectly maintained that there were two hall porters guarding the entrance to the University, one a Catholic, the other a Protestant. Besides, as the Commission pointed out, the influence of the Royal University had been one of "positive destruction." The Queen's University, which was a federal University, containing the three colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway, each college being an independent academic unity, was swept away, and displaced by a mere examining board. What had the result been? The classes in the Queen's Colleges had been depleted, sometimes almost to one-half, because residence was no longer necessary, and academic training was supplanted by mere coaching. Belfast had suffered almost as much from this as had the other colleges, and when he urged the need of remodelling the University system in Ireland, it was not only in the interests of Catholics, but quite as much in the interests of the Protestants of the North. The numbers in Trinity College had similarly decreased by the action of the same cause. The greatest disservice which the Royal University had done to Ireland had been to lower the ideal of University life and education; in fact, as was summed up in the words of the Report— Though created to meet the religious difficulty, it has neither solved the difficulty nor satisfied the educational needs. There was one other point in the Report to which he would call attention. Among the evils due to the want of sufficient University education in Ireland were some which affected the whole social and administrative system in Ireland. They often heard of the dearth of trained candidates whenever the question arose of Roman Catholic appointments in Ireland. Sir Horace Plunkett, who gave evidence before the Commission, said that this particular defect met him at every point in his work. And from another side Bishop O'Dwyer argued that with the new social order in Ireland there was an urgent need of educating the leaders of the democracy. Perhaps hon. Members would recall some pages that were written by John Henry Newman in 1854, just after he went over to Ireland as rector of the Catholic University in St. Stephen's Green. Newman had turned his back upon Oxford, he renounced it, and said that he looked for a University in a more central position than Oxford had to show, and a country closer upon the highway of the seas. He looked towards a land both old and new; old in its Christianity, young in the promise of its future; a nation which had received grace before the Saxon came to Britain, and which had never quenched it. And turning his eyes towards a hundred years to come, he dimly saw the island he was gazing on become the road of passage and union between two hemispheres. Thither, as to the fountain-head of their Christianity, students were flocking from east, west, and south, all speaking one tongue, all owning one faith, all eager for one large, true wisdom. Those words were written fifty years ago. They might say it was only a vision, and perhaps with parts of that vision they might not all be in equal sympathy; but, still, was it not pathetic to think, pathetic to ask, what had arisen in Ireland since that day? What, indeed, except the fabric, the overshadowing fabric, of an examining body? Think of young Irishmen, with their social instincts, their spirit of fellowship, their genius for friendship, asking for a University, and being given — an examining board! Those in this House who looked back fondly to their college days were aware that they learned quite as much from one another as they learned from their teachers. It had been said that "men unlearn in this world what they learned in the University." True, indeed, it was that our store of positive knowledge in any department of learning was apt to run rather low as years went by; but there was one thing which men did not unlearn and did not forget: they did not forget the hours they had spent in human intercourse, in the rivalry of games, in the frank interchange of talk, in the invigorating discipline that came from the clash and collision of sympathetic minds. Nor did they forget, either, the value of their friendships, those friendships of youth, disinterested and unbought; nor, again, the sense of corporate existence which bound together the present and the past. Imagine what it would be if their own memories of college life gathered only round the examinations they had passed, or—hardly more dismal —those in which they had failed! He asked this House, in the interests of the young men of Ireland who were endowed with great gifts, and whose opportunities for using them were so sadly crippled, that, as soon as might be, it would address itself seriously to the duty of opening to them some better prospect of University education than an examining board.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

speaking for himself and all his colleagues, said that not for many years had they listened to a speech which moved them so profoundly as that just delivered by the hon. Member for Cambridge University. He believed it was the first time the hon. Member had addressed the House, and it was to them a touching thing that his first speech should have been a plea for his native land. Perhaps they might be able to draw a happy augury from the fact that no speech from the Irish benches, he thought, ever created more enthusiasm and profound gratification among them than did the speech which the hon. Member had just delivered. If the hon. Gentleman's colleagues sitting round him approached the subject in the same spirit, the task of any Government in endeavouring to settle this great problem would be very considerably smoothed. The hon. Member was perfectly right when he said that in solving the problem of Irish education, which up to the present had proved to the British Government insoluble, they must begin at the top. They could not have any satisfactory system of education in Ireland until they solved this great question of higher education, and that was a lesson which had yet to be learned by those who approached this problem. He was particularly struck in the speech of the hon. Member by the moving and beautiful picture he drew of his own feelings when leaving the social gathering of Irish Catholics and Protestants in Cambridge, and when he contrasted with it the condition of feeling in Ireland. He would ask the hon. Member did it not occur to him that there might be something to account for that state of things in the social system and in the system of government of the two countries? It was quite true that Irish Catholics and Protestants, no matter how wide the gulf that might have divided them in Ireland, became friends the moment they left their own country and went across to England or to the Colonies or to America. The examples the hon. Member had given of what occurred in Oxford and Cambridge might be paralleled by what he himself had seen in the Colonies, in America, and in Australia of men in various walks of life. Was not that a matter which ought to set people thinking as to what was the cause of this spirit which lived among the people in Ireland only? The moment they left their native land the cursed spirit which divided Catholics and Protestants was exorcised, and, like all civilised and Christian people, they became good friends. Must there not be something in Ireland—it was not the atmosphere nor the colour of the soil—must not there be something peculiar to Ireland that was the cause of this? If the hon. Member looked into this question and approached the whole Irish question in the same spirit of sympathy, he would find that outside the University question, in the political sphere, was to be found the Origin and source of this bitterness which had cursed Ireland. The hon. Member had said that he never could understand why it was that Catholics disapproved of a mixed University in Ireland, while they approved of it in England, in Germany, in Harvard. He might tell him that this disapproval was not a matter of fixed principle; he meant the disapproval by the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church was not a matter of invariable principle applicable to all circumstances. It was to a large extent modified and controlled by circumstances, and if the hon. Member wanted to know why it was that the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, speaking on behalf of the Roman Catholics, made the declaration which he had quoted, and which correctly represented the situation, the reason was, in his opinion, that the circumstances of Ireland, historical and social, had been such that, in the judgment of the Catholic bishops and of the vast majority of the Catholic laity, it would not be wise or safe for Irish Catholics or Nationalists to go into Trinity College or to avail themselves of the other mixed systems that prevailed. The hon. Member had quoted to the House the last proposal made by Trinity College to the Irish prelates and rejected by them. He had told them that Trinity College had offered to the Catholic prelates a Catholic chapel within the College grounds, that they had offered a theological faculty, not endowed by them of course, but paid for by the bishops, and certain other privileges to Catholic students. Yes, they offered these things, but they did not offer any share in the government of the University or College. They would still have left Trinity College and the University of Dublin in the hands of the bitterest enemies of the Catholic Church. That was the reason, and the all sufficient reason, why the prelates refused to accept the offer as a just or a safe settlement of the question. The hon. Member had also overlooked the fact that that very division which existed between Catholics and Protestants, which he truly said was worse now than fifty years ago, that very division which made Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants distrust each other, made it impossible for them to accept as a satisfactory University for their people a University which, with all its concession, still left the government of the institution in the hands of the bitterest enemies of the faith of the people. Trinity University was founded for the avowed purpose of putting down the Catholic faith in Ireland, and it had been true to that tradition, and Roman Catholics were asked to accept in satisfaction of their claim the fact that the doors would be thrown open, while the government remained for the next fifty years in the hands of men whose whole spirit was opposed to the Catholic religion. There was another reason which weighed with him, and in this he presumed he should not carry the hon. Member with him. The hon. Member had astonished him, he confessed, because he did expect a very different speech from him. He thought he would have shared the opinions of those sitting around him on the Opposition Benches and would have spoken in a bitter and hostile spirit. But although he had shown so broad-minded a spirit, he was afraid he should not carry the hon. Member with him when he stated a further reason why they declined to accept the offer of Trinity College as a settlement of the claims of Irish Catholics. Trinity College had been from its foundation the fortress of political ascendancy in Ireland. He would take this opportunity of congratulating his hon. friend the Member for North Galway upon delivering one of the best modern speeches he had ever heard in the House of Commons. The hon. Member had said that a new spirit had arisen in Ireland, and that they wanted education to be Irish and not a kind of bastard education imported from across the channel and applied by English methods to Irish needs. The Irish system was a bastard imitation of English education with all the life taken out of it. The hon. Member for North Galway was right when he said that this consideration was becoming more and more important. Irish Nationalists declined to accept Trinity College on the terms upon which they offered to throw open their gates to Roman Catholics because it was and had always been a political institution, the centre and fortress of all that was narrow and bitter and hostile to the national life of Ireland. With all the concessions which had been recapitulated by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, and if the Catholics were to throng into Trinity College to-morrow, for fifty years the enemies of the Irish nationality and the Irish race would be the masters there, and Nationalists declined to be under their government. The hon. Member had spoken truly of a great intellectual awakening amongst the young men of Ireland, but he had forgotten to say, or at any rate he did not dwell upon the fact, that that awakening was in connection with the Celtic revival.

MR. BUTCHER

I know that.

MR. DILLON

But what had Trinity College done for the Celtic revival? They had simply sent their professors before the Commission in order to cover it with contempt and opprobrium. They declared that the old Irish literature was indecent and that no respectable parent would allow his children to look at it. That was the contribution of the professors from Trinity College. On the Education Board, the Primary Education Board, and other boards where the Trinity gang were represented, they blocked the teaching of the Irish language and obstructed and ridiculed by every means in their power the settlement of this question in Ireland. For the last fifty years Trinity College had thwarted every attempt to improve Irish national life. He rejoiced that to-day they had a resolution which dealt with the whole field of Irish education, because on previous occasions they had been confined to one particular part of the question. Before he passed away from the question of Trinity College he wished to say that he thought the present Government was entirely too tender to that institution. He was much interested in the Chief Secretary's statement that he did not believe there was any person in Dublin who could pass the portals of Trinity College without emotion. As a citizen of Dublin he, himself, passed the portals of Trinity College every day when in Ireland, and he felt very deep emotion, but very different emotion from that which the right hon. Gentleman meant. He looked upon those portals as one of the last fortresses of political oppression and religious ascendancy in Ireland. Until that was understood the Government could not deal properly with the question. If the representatives of Trinity College would come forward and say, "We are willing next year to give half the government of Trinity College and the University of Dublin to the Irish Nationalists," he did not say they would accept it, but still they would recognise the honesty of the offer. But so long as the government of the place was kept under their own control the offer was dishonest. He hoped that if a Commission was appointed to inquire into the management of Trinity College it would not, like the last Commission, sit for three years and then report in four voluminous Blue-books which he supposed not ten people in Ireland had read. He hoped that one of the chief purposes of the Commission would be to inquire into the position which Trinity College occupied in the whole scheme of Irish education. They wanted to know, no doubt, what was the amount of Trinity College funds and what it did with them. Trinity College had always shown a great disinclination to make the amount of its funds public. They wanted to know about the government of the College, but above all—and this was far more important—they wanted to know, and this House should know, what part the College played in the general education of the people of Ireland. It was absolutely impossible to have any settlement of the Irish education question until they had settled the University question, because, unless they had a genuinely popular system of University education, they could not have in the country men who were capable of carrying out every branch of education. They therefore required a popular and widely accepted system of University education if there was to be any progress in the matter of education at all. The general state of education in Ireland was most deplorable, and no parallel to it could be found in any other country in the world. The first thing that struck one was its enormous complexity. Here was a very poor people, in a very poor country, but the people were distinguished, as the hon. Member had said, by an intense desire to acquire education. A variety of education boards had been set up, overlapping each other, all with staffs of inspectors and secretaries, and of many of them organised on the preposterous principle that the boards should have on them an equal number of Catholics and Protestants, without reference to the capacity of the men. The one test for holding office was their religion. There were the Royal University, the Board of Intermediate Education, the Commissioners of National Education, the Technical Education Department of the Board of Agriculture, and the Congested Districts Board, all doing similar work, interfering one with another, and each with different ideas. In 1903—the last year for which there was a complete report—the administrative expenses of the Board of Intermediate Education amounted to £15,000, or £1 17s. 9d. per student, for the distribution of £7,000. Could there be a more extraordinary state of things than that? This was in spite of the fact that the intermediate schools were also operated on by the Board of Agriculture and the Commissioners of Education. It was a most deplorable thing that there should be this evil system in Ireland. He would quote one or two statements from the report of Mr. Dale and Mr. Stevens, two English inspectors who were sent to Ireland a year or two ago to report on the state of intermediate education. Mr. Dale said that their inquiries left them in no doubt that the desire for higher education in Ireland was greater than in England. That was a remarkable statement coming from an English inspector, in view of the fact that for two centuries the Government had put every obstacle in the way of the people acquiring education. In Mr. Dale's report he also found the statement that the desire for education was greater in the southern provinces than in Ulster. The number of male scholars in the superior schools of Ulster was 4,541, while in the corresponding schools in Leinster the number was 12,286, and in Munster 8,003. Yet they were told that all the education and intelligence was to be found in the province of Ulster. He quoted these figures only to show the extraordinary cruelty of the policy which put obstacles in the way of the acquisition of education by people who were so anxious for it. The next point in the system of intermediate education commented on by Mr. Dale was the deplorable want of coordination between the primary, secondary, and the university systems. There was no system by which a boy of exceptional ability could climb from the primary school up to the secondary school and then to the University. Mr. Dale said that this was peculiarly needed in Ireland, because the boys in the primary schools possessed in a remarkable degree that ability which fitted them for climbing to the higher schools. Consequently, because the parents of the boys were poor, the children were unable to go up the educational ladder. One of the most remarkable paragraphs in the whole report was that relating to co-ordination. The report stated that the problem had been solved by one body of men in Ireland, namely, the Christian Brothers. Was it not characteristic of the English Government in Ireland that it was the one body in all Ireland to which the State gave no assistance? The report showed how the Christian Brothers out of their own resources and funds, charitably collected, had solved the problem. Their schools were most admirable, and boys who were specially fitted for the secondary schools were advanced by a most perfect system of co-ordination. That was an illustration of the way in which education in Ireland had suffered by the policy of the Government. The Government had always refused to give any encouragement to these schools because the Christian Brothers, to their immortal credit, had absolutely refused to subordinate their system of teaching to the National Board or any Government interference. The Christian Brothers were perfectly willing to have certain inspection which would go to show whether their work was well done or not, but they refused to accept the cut-and-dry programme of the National Board. Because they stuck to that, and had the best teachers in the country, they were boycotted, and every effort was made to starve them out. They were therefore thrown back on collections from the people, by means of which, he was happy to say, they had been able to carry on their splendid work. The Agricultural Department had set up a system which clashed with the system of the Board of Intermediate Education in regard to science and art teaching, and now every schoolmaster in Ireland had at least two authorities over him, and he had to be continually consulting both as to the programme, the time table, and every detail of the arrangements of the school. From these two authorities the teacher drew his income. Now the Agricultural Department had taken over into its own hands the whole control of the teaching of science and art in Ireland, and since the Agricul- tural Department had done so they had succeeded in getting the programme altered so as to give a more favourable position to what they called science and art than had been the case before. At first there was a great deal of exultation over the success of the Department of Science and Art. He had never believed in it. He believed there was no greater danger to a system of education such as they had in Ireland than to overdo this system of so-called teaching of science and art in primary and lower secondary schools, at the great risk of undermining and destroying the really sound elementary teaching on which all genuine systems ought to be founded. And it was apparent as this had gone on that that was what had been done. He read in this report grand descriptions of the enormous advance of scientific instruction among the people, and how happy these young boys and girls were in the laboratories. He had had experience of laboratory working himself when medical student, and he maintained that it might be very amusing for children to watch the changing colours in tubes; but when they sought to substitute that class of education for arithmetic, reading, grammar, and a real foundation for education, he held that they were doing a most dangerous thing. He asked the Government to look more closely into these matters. They could very easily get up a system of examination in these so-called laboratory experiments which might look all very well; but at the same time they might be undermining the whole substance of the system. Therefore, when he read these reports showing the enormous number of young children passing in laboratory work he must confess he was still very sceptical and wanted to see how this was going to work out. There was another point—the secondary schools in Ireland under this system, which was condemned in this report, got their income by result fees based largely on a system of examination. He was convinced that that was a bad system. It had been condemned by the Board themselves. They decided that it was a bad system, and they call d upon the Government to substitute for it a system of inspection. He agreed with that condemnation, because he thought the old system was unsound. But he wanted only to dwell upon the great grievance that had arisen in consequence of this system. He thought every hon. Member who knew anything about education would agree that it was of vital and primary importance that a school should know from year to year what its income was to be, and that sometime ahead. But what had happened in the case of these Irish schools? They never knew from year to year what the amount was going to be, and the consequence was that last year they suddenly got notice, actually when the grant was being paid, that the grant was going to be reduced by 30 per cent. The Board had denied that they had reduced it, but as a matter of fact they had reduced the per capita grant. What had been the result? Some schools in Cork had lost £500, others £300, and others £200 a year. How could any man conduct his school if he never knew from year to year what his income was to be? How could he engage his teachers? and what teacher having any real capacity would take service in a country where he did not know on the 1st of January what his income was going to be for the coming year? He asked the Chief Secretary to look into this matter and remedy the grievance pending a general settlement of the whole question. The Intermediate Board had put by, he was told, a reserve fund of £100,000. He thought they should have drawn on the reserve fund and paid the full grants and then told the Government what the condition of affairs was. The present system was one calculated to carry despair to the heart of any man responsible for the secondary schools in Ireland. They were starved; they were incapable of obtaining proper teachers, because there was no university in which to train them. It was based on a totally unsound foundation, because, when the intermediate system of education was being set up in 1878 nobody ever considered whether it was a good educational system or not: the only question was what political promises could be got. Therefore, they had a system condemned by every expert; and, finally, they added to all the other horrors the element of uncertainty. There never was a country which more required a really sound and well co-ordinated system of education than Ireland. There never was a country which had been more cruelly treated in regard to education than Ireland. Until a hundred years ago education was a penal offence; and people were alive who remembered that the schools had to be held in the hedges and that pickets were placed on the neighbouring hills watching for the approach of the police in case it should be discovered that the children were being taught. Therefore there was a great educational debt due to Ireland; and a great wrong to be undone. Yet when this Imperial Parliament gave Ireland an educational system it gave Ireland the most stupid and rotten system in the world. Again, they in Ireland complained that they did not get a fair share of the educational endowments, although as a matter of fact, Ireland, being such a poor country, steeped in poverty, ought to have been granted more than her proportionate share. What share Ireland got, if allowed to do so herself, she would administer economically. But the money which was given was wasted on extravagant Boards. Therefore, he insisted that Ireland had been peeculiarly cursed in this matter, although it needed a co-ordinated system of education more than any other country. It might be thought that he was a Cassandra in this respect, but he held that there was nothing in the long list of Irish grievances, nothing which had struck a more deadly blow to the aspirations of the Irish people, than the way in which Parliament had dealt with Irish education. What were they going to do for it? Dr. Dale had said that the present system of education in Ireland was absurd and futile. All the Reports, including the last Report of the National Education Board itself, condemned strongly the delay that had taken place in making the building grants to the Irish National Schools. Practically thousands of these schools stood in need of such aid; and the Report went on to show that vast numbers of the schools were in a state of ruinous disrepair. Last year in July a Question was answered by the Secretary to the Treasury,† who in his reply said that the matter had been under consideration for six years, and that they could not come to an agreement, but that they were upon the eve of one. It was a fact however, that in the year 1902 an Inter-Departmental Committee was appointed, which reported in 1903. The Government would not, however, publish their Report, and for over six years they had been considering this subject with the Treasury. On 25th of July last the hon. Member for South Dublin said that the Government had made a special new grant of £100,000 for this purpose.‡ He asked the right hon. Gentleman if that was in substitution for, or in addition to, the £30,000 or £34,000 a year which used to be allowed on the Estimates for this purpose. The Chief Secretary seemed rather confused and could not answer the question offhand, but ultimately said it was an additional grant. They had never, however, since heard of either the additional or the original grant. He wanted to know what had become of the grant of £110,000 or the other grant of £30,000 or £34,000. Applications by managers had been sent in for four years and the only answer they had received was that the Treasury were considering the matter. He hoped they should also have some general explanation of what was to be done for Irish education, and he reminded the House that a former Chief Secretary sitting on the Front Opposition Bench said in 1904 that it would be intolerable if the English people were to allow any disparity to arise between the Irish and the English people.

MR. MASSIE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)

said he should not have ventured to intrude upon the House had he not been greatly interested in the subject of Irish university education, not only in private, but to same extent publicly. He deeply sympathised with the hon. Member for East Mayo who had described the grievances of Ireland in this matter, and how much Ireland had suffered from the want of a system of public education.

They felt the charm of the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge, but he had been anxious to see in the course of † See (4) Debates, ch, 616. ‡ See (4) Debates, cl., 246. that speech some practical way of putting the desires into effect. He himself approached the subject from rather a different point of view, but he knew that if he expressed his differences with moderation he should have a hearing from his hon. friends opposite. He instinctively and he thought reasonably approached the subject of Irish university education, and in fact the subject of Irish education altogether, just as he approached the question of English education, with an earnest longing for national unity. He had had it borne in upon him that any suggested solution which did not work in that direction did not deserve the name of a solution at all and had no pretence whatever to finality. What was it which in the history of legislation had precluded a solution and prevented finality? He thought they would all admit that the difficulty had arisen in what was called the cause of religion. If they were to draw their conclusions from the spirit and actions of a certain class of religionists they would be inclined to say that these men regarded as the primary and fundamental word of the Founder of their religion— I come not to bring peace on earth but a sword. That seemed to be their first commandment. But it was a slander to say that that was the spirit either of the Founder of the religion or of the religion which He founded. The sword did not come from those who understood that in that religion all men were equal, but from those who were always craving for preeminence. It must be, and it was one of the perversions of the Christian religion, that warfare was inherent among its followers. If Churches had not fulfilled their proper functions in making peace among mankind, then it became the duty of the State to take up the much neglected Church role, to cast out preeminence by equality, and to assuage bitterness by civil companionship. There was nothing which tended more effectually towards peace and towards the solution of difficulties than mutual understanding, and there was nothing which tended more effectually towards mutual understanding, as Matthew Arnold said, than companionship in the same school or university. He believed the spirit of unity was abroad in England, at any rate among the laity, and this had spread just in proportion as the ascendancy of a particular Church was being modified. They were all most anxious that this spirit of peace and unity should pervade Ireland as he believed it had begun to pervade England more and more. Surely it must be the aim of every Irish and English patriot that Ireland should cease to be two nations and become one. The cause of this desirable consummation not having been arrived at was the failure of Irishmen, both Catholics and Protestants, to accept and to work out a combined system of education, and both parties had been somewhat in fault. In the great Irish Parliament of 1783 a petition was presented to the Irish House of Commons by Mr. Grattan, exemplifying that toleration which was so characteristic of him and those who worked with him, against the exclusion of Protestant professors and students from an educational institution then proposed to be created. The petitioners were Roman Catholics but they said— The exclusion of persons professing the Protestant religion appears to the petitioners to be highly inexpedient, inasmuch as it tends to perpetuate that line of separation between His Majesty's subjects of different religions which the petitioners do humbly consider it is the interest of the country to obliterate; and the petitioners submit that if the youth of both religions were instructed together in those branches of education which are the same for all, their peculiar tenets would in all probability be no hindrance hereafter to a friendly intercourse, and that the petitioners having, in common with the rest of their brethren the Catholics of Ireland, received as one of the most important benefits bestowed on them by His Majesty and the Legislature, the permission of having their youth educated along with the Protestant youth of the kingdom in the University of Dublin, and experience having fully demonstrated the wisdom and utility of that permission, petitioners see with great concern the principle of separation and exclusion, then, as they hoped, removed for ever, now likely to be renewed and re-enacted. The Catholic Bishop Doyle having been asked in 1825 whether he considered it desirable that the Roman Catholic laity should be educated conjointly with Protestants said he thought that it was desirable, if thereby the harmony of the different sects in Ireland could be promoted, and he added that professors of their own faith were not necessary if the students could receive religious instruction where they pleased, and, for those residing in Trinity College, there were sufficient opportunities on Sundays. When the Queen's Colleges were started one section of the Roman Catholics endeavoured to rally the country to the denominational cry, but the Young Ireland party, headed by Davis and Duffy, was against them. The Young Ireland party appealed to the spirit of national unity. A great Catholic educationalist, Sir Thomas Wyse, the Secretary of the Catholic Association, left behind him these words written seventy years ago— To class our national schools under partial designations of Protestant and Catholic, and I Presbyterian, is a contradiction. By becoming sectarian they cease to be national. By parcelling our people into lots, by thus keeping them parqués in their respective pasturages, we recognise a sort of inherent incompatibility; we tell the student that it is in his nature to live apart and hostile; we grow Protestants and we grow Catholics for future conflicts; and lest, if confided to their own untutored feeling, they should seek in religion only that in which all agree, we take care to point their attention to that in which each differs. We convert into a law of hate what heaven gave us as a law of love, and degrade seminaries for the universal mind of the country into rival garrisons for a faction. In 1897 the late Mr. Lecky in this House, looking back to a long experience, gave utterance to these words— There could be no greater misfortune to Ireland than that members of the Protestant and Roman Catholic religions in their early days should be entirely separated. Let them remember that on one side no. 1 the Prelacy of the Roman Catholic Church, what might be called the Irish party, were in favour of these Queen's Colleges when they were started. The other side was headed by Cardinal Cullen. That gentleman was sent to Ireland when he had been thirty years in Rome, and, in the words of Bishop Doyle, was "intruded" into Ireland contrary to all precedent without the recommendation of the Church of Ireland. It had been the practice of the Papacy to appoint such Church dignitaries on the recommendation of the Church of Ireland. Cardinal Cullen, more a foreigner than an Irishman, was the head of the party opposed to the colleges, and it was through him that in 1850 an embargo was put on these unsectarian colleges by a decision of the Synod of Thurles, but only by a majority of one, an abbot irregularly introduced by the Cardinal. He obtained on April 18th, 1850, a Papal rescript issued by Pius IX, in which it was stated it would be the duty of the bishops— To frame rules to be everywhere observed for withdrawing the faithful from frequenting these colleges. They might be forgiven, many of them, for looking back with regretful yearning to the policy of the Irish party at that date. It was something to remember that half the Irish Prelacy were in favour of the mixed education of Protestants and Catholics. That was the true Irish party. It savoured of Irish soil and possessed Irish ideas, and he would like to see such Irish ideas carried out. On the other side they had the ultramontane party savouring of foreign soil and having ultramontane ideas which had been the leading ideas in Ireland ever since. Curiously enough Pope Pius IX, who issued that rescript, supported a very different policy in America. When the two sections of the Roman Catholic Church there were quarrelling over the propriety of making a raid on the State for public money, Pope Pius IX sent over Monsignor Satolli to deal with the question. He calmed down the militant section of the Roman Catholic Church in America, and at the Conference of bishops and archbishops the following Resolution was passed— That the Church of Rome does not disapprove of the public schools; that it absolutely forbids priests and bishops from excommunicating parents because they send their children to the public schools, or from depriving their children of the Sacraments because they go to the public schools; that so far from disapproving of public schools, it approves them provided they can be carried on in such a way that the moral and religious training of the children can be provided for. Monsignor Satolli suggested three ways in which that provision could be made. First, by religious education by the Church in the school building out of school hours; second, by religious education by the Church not in the school building but in a building provided for the purpose, and, finally, where neither of these methods were practicable, then in the family. The same Pope sanctioned the entry of Catholic students at Oxford and Cambridge on the condition that provision was made at the universities for the religious supervision of the Catholic students. That was the principle for which he for one stood with regard to Irish university education—-united secular education and separate religious education. He had been told in some quarters that such a system would not now be accepted, but it was not a question only of what would be accepted, there was also the question of what could be justly offered. Equality was always just, and those who rejected equality took upon themselves the responsibility of their refusal and the result of a demand for special treatment, namely, the separation of citizens. It was continually said in Ireland that conscience prevented students going to the Queen's Colleges, but he could not understand how that could be when half the bishops at the Synod of Thurles were in favour of their going. He could not help thinking that if the proposal had been carried into effect to establish religious residences, under the charge of Catholic Superiors, for the Catholic students attending those colleges, the educational problem would have been very largely solved. The Bishop of Limerick, when before the Royal Commission in 1901, said the prohibition of the attendance of Catholic students at the Queen's Colleges was not exactly a prohibition, but a warning that the colleges were dangerous places. On the question of conscience he said it was not so much a matter of the individual conscience as an objection to a system for the whole country. If it had been a matter of individual conscience, then an absolute prohibition would have been issued. With regard to the Oxford and Cambridge Universities the Bishop said that the student minimised the risk by his own personal precautions. The objectors to these Queen's Colleges had been challenged to produce evidence that they had perverted a single student from the faith, and they had failed to do so. The only instance that had been brought forward was a case which had resulted from private conversation, and a private conversation might take place anywhere. The head of the Jesuit College in Dublin, Father Delany, took credit, and rightly, for the fact that Protestants attended the classes of his college. When he was asked how that was, he said that their public teaching was not connected with Roman Catholic doctrine. When he was asked how they provided for definite Catholic training, he said: "Oh, we provide for that at another time." Then what difference was there between the Catholic College on St. Stephen's Green in its public teaching and the Queen's Colleges in their public teaching? The difference lay here, it was not in the teaching of the teachers, but in the authority that appointed them. The Crown appointed the professors in the Queen's Colleges, and the Church appointed the professors at the Jesuit College, and it came out in the evidence before the Commission that in the appointment, or the warning, or the dismissal of professors at a Catholic university, the archbishops would be the final court of appeal as to a question of faith and morals. But the scope of faith and morals was a very wide scope. Cardinal Cullen, in a letter to the clergy dated November 26th, 1850, said that the Divine commission to the episcopacy included faith and morals, but these had a— direct or indirect connection with the various departments of human knowledge, and the exercise of the Divine commission must consequently extend to the supervision and control of every system of education proposed or instituted for Catholics. That claim was said by some Catholics to be no longer advanced, but if so, why was the embargo upon the un-sectarian colleges still maintained? This policy was not the policy of the Irish party of bishops, but the policy of Cardinal Cullen, backed by Rome, and whilst he would not venture to ask whether that policy was wise, he would ask whether it was national and unifying. Experience had shown that, so far as faith and morals were concerned, it was unnecessary. He did not regard Trinity College, Dublin, as yet national, in spite of the fact that the tests had been abolished, any more than he regarded Oxford and Cambridge as altogether national. Trinity College, Dublin, was too definitely Protestant and Anglican. Oxford and Cambridge were too distinctly Anglican, though he would rather hesitate to say, in addition, they were always too definitely Protestant. But, so far as Oxford and Cambridge had been changed in their atmosphere and in the conduct of university affairs—it had been largely because they had not been boycotted by the Nonconformists, who had gone pluckily to those universities and taken the risks. He did not for a moment believe in the Protestantisation of Trinity College, nor did he believe in its Catholicisation. Protestantism and Catholicism should be, in his view, two things entirely outside university recognition. Neutrality was not Protestantism any more than Undenominationalism was Nonconformity. A university was a place where all could be taught on equal terms. Without equality there could be no finality in any educational legislation. What was equality? It was— [the realisation of] the principle which gives equal privilege to all men, irrespective of their creed, and refuses to give privilege to any man because of his creed. That was the definition given in the course of a very striking piece of evidence before the Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland by the right hon. Thomas Sinclair. He had been told that what he (Mr. Massie) desired was a dream. All he had to say was that he must go on dreaming still, in the hope that in time his dream would come to pass; and meanwhile he could not support any plan which put the fulfilment of that dream into the dimmer distance. And so he, and those who agreed with him, must go on working for that happy day for national unity in Ireland when the divisive policy of Cardinal Cullen should be abandoned, and, in harmony with the views of Bishop Doyle, the Irish party, and Young Ireland, a system of education should be established which should be a uniting ground for all the youth of that great country.

SIR EDWARD CARSON (Dublin University)

said the question of Irish university education had arisen upon many ocasions in this House since he had had the honour of being a Member, and he was afraid it was a great many years ago since he first ventured to address the House upon this subject as Member for Trinity College—which always came necessarily into these debates—and said that, so far as he was concerned, although it might not be his own ideal, this House ought to face the real facts as they stood in regard to university education in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had ideas with which a great many might possibly agree; he dreamt the dream of taking away religious teaching altogether from the Universities of Ireland; he saw the youth of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, growing up together, learning the same lessons, reading the same literature, and exchanging their ideas in the class room and on the cricket field; and he said: "Let us bring about national unity." That was a consummation they would all desire. That was a solution they would all devoutly hope for, because it was to that stage of men's lives, by intercourse one with another, whatever might have been their earlier associations, that they learnt to respect the views of those who differed from them, and the necessity of modifying the extremity of their own views. But there was no use in talking of that as an ideal for Ireland, for the simple reason that the majority of the Irish people would not have it. The hon. Member for the Cricklade division of Wiltshire had spoken of the Queen's Colleges. The Queen's Colleges were established as absolutely undenominational, and were promptly described as "godless colleges," of which the Irish people would have none. What was the good of going back to a system which had absolutely failed in Ireland? No progress would be made on this question by such violent attacks as the hon. Member for East Mayo had made on Trinity College. His description of it as the bitterest enemy of the Irish people was without any justification. A considerable percentage of the students at Trinity College had come there, notwithstanding the discouragement of their own church, amounting to 10 per cent. of the whole of the students. Had any instance ever yet been brought forward, since Trinity College was thrown open at the commencement of last century to Catholic students, of either the faith or morals of any student having been in the slightest degree interfered with? He had himself made many Catholic friends there, and, although they had differed since, not merely in religion, but fiercely in politics, they had remained his friends. If it was an historical fact that Trinity College was established 300 years ago with a design to put down the hon. Member for East Mayo's religion, was it not all the more to its credit that it should have been the first of the Universities to ask that its doors should be thrown open to Roman Catholics? A full generation, moreover, had now elapsed since its prizes, Fellowships, and even a share in the management had been thrown open to the hon. Member's co-religionists. Was anything to be gained, or any approach to a settlement of this question to be reached, by harking back to the past, with bitter attacks upon an institution which, so far as Trinity College was concerned, had at all events for the last fifty years been only too anxious heartily to welcome Roman Catholics? Trinity College had made further offers. It had offered to the Roman Catholics to pay for sectarian teaching according to their religion by persons chosen by the Roman Catholics themselves to the students who came within the walls of Trinity College. They offered also, if they so pleased, to have a Catholic dean in residence within the college. Trinity College could do no more than they had done, because they had offered to the Catholics exactly the same equality as the Protestants of various sections enjoyed within the walls of that institution. The hon. Member for East Mayo had said that even if they eliminated the religious question he would still object to Trinity College because it was hostile to the national life of Ireland. He did not know exactly what the hon. Member meant by that phrase. If he meant that the majority of the students in the college were Protestants and Unionists his statement was perfectly true. But why were the majority of the students Protestants and Unionists? For the simple reason that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy would not allow the Roman Catholic population to go there and the Nationalists would not allow the Nationalists to go there. Could anything be more unfair than to say that in Trinity College the majority were Protestants and Unionists without stating the reason? It was the Roman Catholics themselves who had brought about the very matter of which they complained. If tomorrow the ban was withdrawn and the Roman Catholic vouth of Ireland were allowed to go to Trinity College, then in time they all—because they were dealt with solely on merit—would be just as much entitled as Protestants to obtain Fellowships, Professorships and a place in the management. There was nothing to prevent the whole Board of the College in the course of time being a Catholic Board under the system which prevailed. It was true that if Catholic students were admitted it would take them a long time to attain to that, but anybody who knew University life knew that there was no other proper way of selecting a governing body than to select the members from its own corporation. The moment they departed from that system they got into the old difficulty that had been described by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, whose speech they had all listened to with so much pleasure. But even that hon. Member felt bound to ridicule the system which prevailed in trying to keep up the constitution of the Royal University Ireland.

The hon. Member for East Mayo had said that— If Trinity College was sincere in desiring to get Catholics into the University, will you make us an offer to put a large number of Nationalists on the Board of Trinity College next year. What a way to appoint the board of a University—to select politicians, and not members of the corporation of the University itself! In his opinion the fault of all the systems of education in Ireland outside of Trinity College was the fact—and it was a lamentable fact to have to state—that on every occasion on which a vacancy occurred in the management of the Board, whether elementary or intermediate, or University, as carried on by the Royal University, they had to consider not who was the best man for a particular place, but whether it was the turn of a Protestant or of a Catholic; be he an inferior Protestant or an inferior Catholic he must get his turn and they must put up with him in the government of the University. He was proud to think that the one thing in Trinity College that was never asked in relation to these matters was—What is your religion? [Laughter.] They might laugh, but it was the fact, and that was why the most distinguished men and the most hardworking men had always in Trinity College reached the highest eminence there. He remembered asking the late Dr. Salmon about the proportion of students, and he said he had never asked about the religion of anybody who entered the College. He asserted that in Trinity College the sole way in which a man could get on the board of management was by competitive examination, with the object of obtaining Fellowships and degrees, so that he could pass up by promotion until he reached the board. He certainly felt somewhat nervous the other evening when he heard the Chief Secretary announce his idea of an inquiry into the system of government in Trinity College, until he remembered that the right hon. Gentleman himself was a University man. He felt nervous lest there should be introduced into the governing body of Trinity College the idea of any selection except by the corporation and from the corporation themselves. What would happen if they were to put any portion of its government under the Executive in Ireland? They would go back to the same ludicrous system that prevailed in the Royal University. Instead of inquiring into the qualifications of a man, it would be the old story — whose turn is it, Protestant or Catholic? Therefore when Trinity College was abused as not being the great national University they would all wish it to be, let them face the actual facts and see what was the real truth in relation to the matter. It had a majority of Protestants and Unionists, but that was not by reason of anything in the government of the College, but by reason of the fact that Catholics and Protestants had not been allowed to work together. He had said this in defence of the University he was proud to represent, and he went back to the arguments with which he started. There was nothing they could do with Trinity College which would satisfy the demands of the Irish Catholic populalation. They were not satisfied when it was Protestant, they were not satisfied when they were asked to have it mixed by having all religions equally recognised and taught inside its walls. There was only one other alternative and that was to turn it into a purely Catholic institution. That was quite impossible. But they were faced with the fact that if the hon. Gentleman's ideals had not been fulfilled by undenominational colleges, such as Queen's Colleges were, and if Catholic Ireland had not been satisfied with all the concessions Trinity College had made, Ireland must go on with the present state of affairs. He was always being accused of being a bigoted Orangeman, but whatever he might be called he knew far too well the benefits to be gained from University education to wish to deny any solution that could be found which might be of benefit to his country. He had said on every occasion that the necessity for it, so far from decreasing, was increasing. Session after session they gave more control to the majority of the people. Since he came to the House great changes had taken place. They had set up a great system of local government in the country and a large number of offices, more or less under popular control and influence. These places must be filled by properly educated men, for it could not be expected that progress would be made in the systems they had set up unless they were prepared as far as possible to supply the proper means for carrying out such an education in the body politic of Ireland itself. He had always said that an effort ought to be made to secure some settlement of the question of Irish education. While he said that, he said also that there was no reason why they should in any wise interfere with Trinity College.

MR. DILLON

If you will not block the way.

SIR EDWARD CARSON

said he had never hesitated to speak of Trinity College as having no intention or desire to block the way. Trinity College had no intention or desire to block the way. For his own part he looked upon this subject as so important that he would rather lose his seat for Dublin University than oppose this demand for a settlement of the Irish University question. At the same time, there was plenty of work for Trinity College to do for the Irish people. They might want more practical schools, and a teaching more suitable to the larger class of students who went there now. The hon. Member for East Mayo had talked about the objections to an English education in Ireland, and had said he desired to have something different. He was not going to argue with the hon. Gentleman as to what was the best sort of education to give to Irishmen; but in Trinity College they gave an education which suited the class which went there not merely for the sake of preparing to obtain office in Ireland, but which fitted the students for taking the great part which they had hitherto taken in high offices throughout the Empire. They wanted to see that education continued in Trinity College for those who desired to take advantage of it; and they took no narrow view of the educational needs of their country.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said he had long watched in despair the languishing condition and the neglect of Irish education by successive Governments. It had been said that the reform of Irish education should be begun at the top. He did not much care where they began; but they must begin somewhere, and be quick about it. He, however, had a prejudice in favour of beginning at the foundation, and, therefore, he would direct attention to the condition of the primary schools in Ireland. The late Government sent over to Ireland a skilled English inspector, Dr. Dale, who made a number of very valuable reports on Irish education. In regard to the town schools Dr. Dale said— It is difficult to give in words any adequate conception of the buildings which are classified by the Irish inspectors as bad. In point of unsuitability and unhealthiness they far exceed any premises which it has ever fallen to my lot to condemn in England. Then in regard to country schools, Dr. Dale said— It is also necessary to point out that in the country, as in the town, there exist schools which fall far short of the standard attained even by the worst schools in the rural districts of England. The schools at Keelogs in the Omagh district, Lakagh, and Kilmorgan in the Sligo district, are among the examples I encountered. They are old thatched cottages, with low roofs, broken floors and tiny windows. The ventilation was most unsatisfactory, and in the winter, when the door cannot be kept open, they must be unhealthy. There were either no out-offices, or they were of the most primitive kind. There had been a disposition in Ireland to dismiss Dr. Dale's report, as it was said that his visit was only a cursory one, and that he had the fatal defect of being an Englishman. But he would turn to the current reports of the Irish inspectors for 1904–5. Mr. Dewar, who was head of the Sligo district, said— There are still, especially in the eastern and northern sections of the circuit, houses which are not fit to be used as schools. … These comfortless hovels are of one type. They have thatched roofs, which admit rain, uneven earthern floors, low walls, small windows, no grates, little space, rickety desks, few maps, no playground, and no offices. They differ little from the surrounding cabins, and if there be a difference the advantage is often on the side of the cabin. Dr. Beatty gave a series of sketches of individual schools in the Ballymena district. Of school A he said— No out-offices, school house shaky, sunken and adjoining graveyard; floor loose; ceiling low; both floor and ceiling broken; 90 on rolls, but accommodation for only 42; desks insufficient; nine children at a desk of eight and a half feet. School B— Accommodation for 41; maximum attendance 71; ventilation and light bad; whitewash urgently needed; maps, press, and teacher's desk old, worn and unsuitable; clock stopped. Probably the clock was ashamed to chronicle time under such miserable circumstances. School C— Walls and windows low; ventilation imperfect; desks worn and narrow; one broken and shaky; no clock; no ball-frame; no table; no modulator; no music charts; no drawing charts; no black board for attendances; no map of Ireland or British Isles; map of Europe small and without a roller. School D— Floor broken; no clock; out offices facing back door within a few feet; offensive smell in room; room dirty; floor not washed during the year; teacher thinks never washed. He need not further labour this deplorable problem. The Commissioners said that practically a thousand schools in Ireland stood in need of having out - offices provided. Provision should also be made, they said, for the periodical cleaning of these offices, the cleaning of the windows and the scrubbing of the floors. They also said that they considered that all National schools should he provided with suitable seats, desks, maps and charts and with fires in the winter months. Leaving the question of the premises, he would take another highly characteristic feature, and that was the scale under which the Commissioners undertook the equipment of schools with apparatus. A first stock of school requisites was furnished gratuitously to each school in proportion to the attendance of children, and the Commissioners undertook to make a payment of 25s. for these requisites for a new school with fifty children. That was 6d. a child. In London for new schools there was allowed from 5s. to 6s. 8d. a child, but the Irish were fobbed off with 6d. for the first year. After the first year in London we provided 2s. 9d. additional every year, and every school hall had £5 for pictures alone. In Nottingham for the last opened elementary school 7s. 10d. was provided for school requisites in the first year, against the Irish sixpence, and 2s. 10d. was given in the succeeding year. Turning to the teacher, he had to face day by day a mountain of difficulties which were unknown to English teachers. He was confronted with grotesque and humiliating regulations which would never be tolerated for five minutes in any other part of the United Kingdom. What sort of man was the Irish teacher? He was the most fertile and resourceful teacher in the world. Mr. Dale said— The Irish teachers whom I saw impressed me—with but few exceptions—as a conscientious body of public servants anxious to do their best for the children entrusted to their charge. That testimony was in the Blue-books cordially endorsed by every Irish inspector. Then as to emoluments, the Irish headmaster received last year the average stipend of £100, while the headmaster in England and Wales received £151 9s. 11d., and the Scotch headmaster £176 14s. 2d. The Irish assistant masters received an average of £79, while England and Wales the average was £110 3s. 1d., and in Scotland £120 11s. 3d. An Irish headmaster was paid less than an assistant master in any other part of the United Kingdom. But that was not all. A charge was laid upon his slender purse which would not be tolerated by the school teacher in any other part of the United Kingdom. Mr. Dale stated— In the country schools minor repairs seem to be more often done at the expense of the teacher; while the arrangements for cleaning the school are commonly left to him. In some cases the teacher pays a caretaker, but most small schools are cleaned by the older children with help from the teacher. The fuel—on the form of turf—is generally provided by the children or the parents, though, in a good many cases, the teacher has to make up any deficiency. In addition to this, the teacher has, in very many cases, to find money for the children's prizes. In addition to all this, might he point out what was expected from the teacher? The Commissioners' rules in regard to school houses stated— The Commissioners expect that all teachers shall have done at their own expense the following, viz., limewashing; cleaning and repairing glass; cleaning privies and ashpits; gravelling yards and walks, and keeping surface channels in order; sweeping chimneys; making good any damage arising from carelessness or neglect; maintaining fences and gates, except damages from lapse of time, and in case of residences built by grants for teachers of National schools, vested in the Commissioners of National Education, or in trustees. The Commissioners will inflict such penalty as they may deem adequate if the teacher fails to fulfil these conditions. When he had done cleaning privies and sweeping chimneys, the Irish teacher was adjured as to how he should occupy his time. He was told— To avoid fairs, markets, and meetings, but above all, political meetings of every kind; to abstain from controversy. Fancy laying such a restriction upon an Irishman— To be imbued with a spirit of obedience to the law and loyalty to the Sovereign. He remembered that not many years ago, after a political meeting, at which Lord Londonderry, he thought it was, made some comments, the Commissioners issued a most fantastic rule for the guidance of teachers should they drift into a meeting where the topic might be of a political nature. It was laid down that each teacher present should be responsible for all that was said or done by all the other persons present. That was a pretty considerable order, but it was also laid down that the teacher must promptly disavow everything of an objectionable character which was said or done. He did not see how he could do it. The Speaker in this House would promptly rule Members out of order if they intervened in that way. The objectionable things included anything bearing upon political authority or any criticism of the Board. The public disavowal was to be followed by the withdrawal of the teacher from the meeting. If he followed this course of instruction he would probably have a brickbat thrown after him. But that the Commissioners would not, of course, mind.

As to what was to be done he spoke with some hesitation, as he recognised that we could not have the same system in Ireland as was applicable to Wales and England, and the converse was also true. He had read the Commissioners' Report, and for the first time in thirty years he found a sentence with which he could agree. It ran— It seems to us to be involved in the legislative union, and to be a necessary consequence of the identity of taxation in Great Britain and Ireland that the Irish child should enjoy equal advantages, so far as education is concerned, to children in English and Scotch schools. In spite of that pronouncement, however, everybody knew the deepening and widening of the disparity which was growing up. This was not only grossly unfair to the Irish child, but it robbed the British Empire of the fruit of its most fertile and adaptable and imaginative class of intellect. What ought to be done? First of all, more money was wanted, and then he thought the money ought to be spent more economically than at present. They should, he thought, overhaul the central executive authorities controlling public education in Ireland, which at present conflicted, overlapped, and duplicated machinery and wasted money. If they took a sovereign which was raised for education in England and Wales, they would find that 3s. was spent in administration; in Scotland 3s. 10d. was spent in administration, but in Ireland no less a sum than 6s. 6d. went in that way. First of all there were the Commissioners, twenty in number, who spent £1,500,000 a year, which was practically obtained from Exchequer grants. He believed that the House and nobody else had any control whatever over their proceedings, and of course they were entirely non-representative. Whom they represented Heaven only knew. Then there was the Intermediate Board with twelve Commissioners and two assistant Commissioners, and the usual greedy army of officials. It was the most egregious body that he had ever come across. They developed higher education by paying grants on examination results and this system entirely perverted educational aims. They spent last year £85,000. They took nearly £2 a head to examine an intermediate scholar, although the entire elementary education of a scholar in Ireland did not reach that figure. Then with regard to technical education, when he turned to the appendices he found some very curious headings with regard to agriculture. For instance, "Scheme for encouraging the improvement in the Breeds of Horses." "Registration of Stallions," "Nominations of Mares," etc., etc. That no doubt was interesting and fruitful work, but he would scarcely call it technical education. He would sweep away the various central exective bodies which controlled public education in Ireland and substitute for them a single unified central council representative of the people of Ireland. By that means alone could they get educational co-ordination and administrative economy. He thought it was high time that the Irish people were associated in some way with the local control of the primary schools. There were already the beginnings of municipal interest in public education, and they should be developed. It was all to the advantage of the Irish child that the Chief Secretary was a man with a great and detailed knowledge of the educational advantages offered to the children of England, Wales and especially Scotland. He hoped his right hon. friend would, courageously and determinedly, do all in his power to secure the same advantages to the Irish children.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

said it would be quite impossible in a debate like this to deal with the whole subject of education, and therefore he would only deal with one or two topics which he thought of importance.

And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.