HC Deb 28 June 1910 vol 18 cc883-97

(1) Such officers and men of the police force of Dublin metropolis and of the Royal Irish Constabulary as the Lord Lieutenant may direct, together with such other persons as the Lord Lieutenant may appoint to assist therein, shall act as and be enumerators for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Every enumerator shall, upon the Monday following the Census day, and such one or more next consecutive days as the Lord Lieutenant may fix, visit every house within the district assigned to him between the hours of half-past eight in the forenoon and six in the afternoon, and take an account in writing, according to such instructions as may be given to him by the Chief or Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of the number of persons who abode therein on the night of the Census day, and of the sex, age, religious profession, birthplace, and occupation of all such persons.

(3) Every enumerator shall take an account of the number of inhabited houses and of uninhabited houses and of houses then building within his district and of the number of rooms occupied by any occupier who is in occupation of less than five rooms; and shall also furnish such particulars as may be directed as to the counties, boroughs, towns, districts, and other areas for electoral or administrative purposes in which the houses are situate.

(4) The enumerators shall also take an account of all such further particulars as they may be directed to inquire into by such instructions as are authorised to be issued under this Act.

(5) Every enumerator may ask all such questions of all persons within his district respecting themselves or the persons constituting their respective families, and respecting such further particulars, as may be necessary for the purpose of taking the said accounts.

Mr. SCANLAN

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "Such officers and men of the police force of Dublin metropolis and of the Royal Irish Constabulary as the Lord Lieutenant may direct, together with such other persons as the Lord Lieutenant may appoint to assist therein," and to insert instead thereof the words "Officials to be appointed by the county councils for the several districts under their respective jurisdictions, and by the local authority of each borough and urban district which is without the jurisdiction of a county council."

The Sub-section, as it stands, directs, in regard to enumerators, that they shall be members of the police force of Dublin metropolis and of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and it will be seen at once that my reason for moving the Amendment is the objection which is felt in Ireland to having the Census taken by these officers. The reason is that the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are criminal officers, and that the nature of their ordinary duties does not permit the people to whom they have to go to make inquiries for the purposes of the Census to treat them as the enumerators who are appointed for similar purposes are naturally treated in England and Scotland. May I direct the attention of the Committee to a similar Clause in the Census (Great Britain) Bill, which has not yet passed through all its stages? Subsection (2) of Clause 3 says: "Overseers and assistant-overseers of the poor, relieving officers for Poor Law unions, and collectors of the poor rate shall, if so required by the Local Government Board, act as and be enumerators for the purposes of this Act." There is every difference in the world in having investigations of this kind made by Civil servants of the Crown and by a body of criminal or quasi-criminal officers like the Royal Irish Constabulary. During the discussion of the Census Bill for Great Britain I was greatly impressed by the insistence with which the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and others pleaded for the protection of the people against officious inquiries by the Census officers. What would be said by the hon. Baronet and his friends if these inquiries were to be made by police officers? The police force being charged with the duty of protecting the country against criminals, are eminently un-suited for making inquiries which belong to the department of Civil administration in this country, and which ought to be treated in the same way in Ireland. The police force would be a most unsuitable body in England and Scotland, and I am sure the hon. Baronet and his friends would object to that force being detailed for such duty.

I shall give the House an instance of the unpopularity of the police in England and Scotland for matters of this kind. Before the establishment of the Labour Bureaux there were distress committees in the various large centres of England and Scotland, and the work of these committees broke down largely because the investigations were entrusted to the members of the police force. But in Ireland the police force is immeasurably more unpopular than in this country, because it represents a foreign garrison in that country. For these reasons, I think I am justified in moving this Amendment. In the Irish Bill it is provided that, besides the police, the enumerators are to be such other persons as the Lord Lieutenant may direct. I think the Lord Lieutenant is not the proper person to appoint enumerators. It may be said that the Lord-Lieutenant, in this particular matter, will act through the Chief Secretary. It is true, in my opinion, that the present Chief Secretary is one of the most popular, or probably the most popular, we have ever had in Ireland since the Union, but even if the appointments are made through him, that will not make the members of the police more acceptable as enumerators. It may be urged against this Amendment that the police force in Ireland are well qualified because they have made these investigations for the purposes of the Census in the past. Well, the only evidence we have had in the House for some time as to the accuracy of the Census Returns is the evidence disclosed in the discussions oh claims for old age pensions, and it is notorious that these Returns in Ireland have been very badly prepared. The fact that they have been badly prepared is, to my mind, an argument why the duties of enumeration should be transferred from the police force. I have frequently heard in this House and read in the reports of discussions in the House of Lords tributes to the manner in which the county councils in Ireland discharge their duties, and I think a matter of this kind, which evidently belongs to the local administration, can very well be entrusted to the local authority in that country.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)

If we were now considering for the first time the question of the Census in Ireland or in any other country I should quite agree that there are many objections which might be made with great force against the employment of police for the business of enumeration. But we are not dealing with it for the first time, and the Committee should bear in mind that the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police have carried out this duty since 1841. They have, therefore, done it, and in 1890 a Committee was appointed by the Treasury to consider the way in which the Census was being carried out in all parts of these Islands, and the Committee, while finding great fault with the manner in which the enumeration was carried out, singled out Ireland for special commendation and said it was uncommonly well done, and proceeded to say—I presume they took some evidence on the subject of the constabulary being used for purely civil work —that they found that practically no obstruction whatever was caused. I therefore point out to the Committee that they are dealing with persons who ever since 1841 have discharged those duties, and although I believe that there are to be found in Ireland persons who have had corresponding experience and who would do the work perhaps as well—though I am not perfectly certain about that—yet by adopting this suggestion we should be putting on one side trained and efficient persons who have done the work in such a manner as to earn the commendation of a perfectly independent Committee, and I think it would not be a good thing to do so. I see here that Mr. Sexton in the Committee on the 1890 Census, in referring to the Irish Census Department, made particular reference to the efficiency which had been displayed by the police in the conduct of this work. The hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Scanlan) referred to the fact that inaccuracies had been discovered in the Census as regards persons approaching the age of seventy. Before you blame the police for that you must remember that the English Census had not been subjected to that particular kind of criticism, because in England the evidence of age is never ascertained by reference to the Census but by reference to the former certificates of birth. Everybody knows, and you cannot help it, that you will find uncertainty in enumeration with regard to the age of very young persons. You do not find that people state age with any very great accuracy when they go back seventy years. Of course you are dealing with people who were of tender years at that time. Therefore the mere fact that there are thousands of cases in Ireland in which the Census has been investigated for the purpose of finding out whether the person is seventy years of age, and the finding that it is not a very complete body of evidence on that point, is not in any way to impugn the accuracy of the inquiries made by the police. I will not refer to the question of expense, but if we were to depart from the practice hitherto adopted, the extra expense thrown on the Treasury of the United Kingdom would be a very large sum indeed. I think, therefore, that efficiency and economy require that we should adhere for the future, or, at all events, in this Census, to the practice which has been established most successfully ever since 1841.

Mr. SCANLAN

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the police are not paid for taking the Census?

Mr. BIRRELL

No. It is part of their duty.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

There is an agricultural Census taken every year in Ireland by the police. The police visit without complaint every farmer and every man who has a piece of land all over the island year after year. They take the number of his cows, his horses, and his sheep. They take the size of his farm; they take whether it is in green crop or in pasture, and they make themselves acquainted with the entire circumstances of the country even down to the number of fowls which the peasant keeps. That has been done now for forty or fifty years without, as far as my experience in the House goes, one scrap or murmur of complaint. Now the suggestion is that the local bodies and the local population without any complaint whatever or any reason whatever should have cast upon them an expense amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds to be added to the local taxation of Ireland. The duties performed by the police in the matter consist simply in the duties of an ordinary postman in leaving a document at the hall door of the people and taking it up after the lapse of ten or fifteen days. That the police in discharging this very simple duty could in any way come in contact with any section of the population is to my mind a suggestion that could only come from a man wholly unacquainted with the realities of life in Ireland.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. HAZLETON

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for East Tyrone (Mr. Kettle) I beg to move to add to Subsection (2) the words: "and, in the case of any person who so abode being married, of the duration of marriage and the number of children born of the marriage. The account shall further give particulars as to whether any person who so abode was blind, deaf, dumb, imbecile, or lunatic."

I understand that words similar to those now proposed are inserted in the English Bill, and that on former occasions they used to be in the Irish Census as well; but that owing to the incompleteness of returns the right hon. Gentleman did not consider it desirable that the words should be kept on. In my opinion this information, which is recognised in this country and in Scotland, to be useful ought to be included in the Census Bill for Ireland as well.

Mr. BIRRELL

This Amendment divides itself into two parts. The latter part, giving particulars as to whether any person is blind, deaf, dumb, imbecile, or lunatic, is already provided for by the existing householders' form, the last column of which is headed, "If deaf and dumb, dumb only, blind, imbecile, idiot, or lunatic." Therefore, that part of the Amendment is wholly unnecessary. With reference to the other part, as to the duration of the marriage and the number of children, I am all for uniformity in these matters. England is inserting, this year for the first time, this particular information with regard to the duration and fertility of marriage, in that respect following the example of Ireland, because in Ireland we used—in saving we I desire to associate myself with the country with whose administration I am concerned—to have this particular piece of information. It was abandoned because it was found, as anybody could have foreseen, that it is rather difficult to rely upon the value of statistics which you get from a somewhat hazy memory. I could not myself tell anybody how long I have been married without considerable research, though my memory is still strong enough to say with some confidence the age and the number of my children. At the same time as they have done this in England, I think that in the interests of statistical uniformity there is no objection to having this column in Ireland also, though the more columns you have the more difficult it becomes to secure that you get accurate information, and the whole object of this matter is accurate information. But still, as England has got it, and as Ireland, I daresay, would be quite up to the level of England in the accuracy of the information contained in answer to these questions, I have no objection, unless somebody volunteers an objection, to accept the first part of the hon. Member's Amendment. Only in order to secure that it is in agreement with the English Bill it would run: "and, in the case of any person who so abode being married, of the duration of marriage and the number of children born of the marriage." And then you must have the words, "and the number of such children living." With those words added I am prepared to accept the first part of the hon. Member's Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HAZLETON

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words, "and, in the case of any person who so abode being married, of the duration of marriage and the number of children born of the marriage, and the number of such children living."

Mr. MOONEY

I wish to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that he has referred to a form which he has before him. In the whole of this Bill there is no form. This is the first time that the Irish Census Bill has appeared in this manner. In any previous Bill the forms to be used were set out either in the Sections or in the Appendix of the Bill, and this is the first time that that practice has been departed from. As I have an Amendment lower down I would be glad, if he can go-into it now, to get the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman as to why he has departed from the old practice.

Mr. BIRRELL

I can assure the hon. Member that there is no intention whatever of inventing any form of our own. If he looks at Section 5, Sub-section (2) of the Bill he will see that the only new forms and instructions that I can issue are "subject to such modifications as are required by or in pursuance of this Act" —that is to say, the alterations and additions of which you have just made one. Subject to that, "the forms and instructions issued under this Section shall be to-the like effect and contain the like matter and particulars"—if the hon. Member likes, I am willing to add the words "only and no others"—"as the form and instructions issued under the Census (Ireland) Act, 1900." I have no desire whatever to have it supposed that we are going to have forms or schedules of a kind which have not been authorised, and I will add only such forms as are necessary, having regard to the alterations in the Act itself. If the hon. Member wishes, and has got an Amendment on the Paper, I shall be quite willing to insert the word "only," so as to limit my power.

Mr. MOONEY

I should be out of order if I were at present to speak on the point, but I think there is another construction that might be put on the Act of 1890.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. BOLAND

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words, "and shall, as regards persons of the age of eight years and upwards, take an account in writing of the number of such persons who can read only, read and write, or can neither read nor write, respectively."

When the Bill was under discussion at the time of the Second Reading I called attention to the returns of illiteracy in Ireland as disclosed by the Census, and I had the satisfaction of hearing from the Chief Secretary that the age of five fixed in Ireland was too low. I think I have his assent to the suggestion which I made, but I have put down this Amendment in order to obtain from him a definite assurance. The Chief Secretary, in dealing with this question in the previous Debate, in reply to a question put by myself, promised to consider the form of a table, and stated that the question of the importance of tabulation had been noted for consideration. If his promise went no further than that I am afraid it would not meet my contention. I do not disapprove of the actual system of diagrams or maps or tables that has been adopted, but what I do complain of is the actual starting point adopted in respect of Illiteracy Returns in Ireland. In the Census of 1901 no less than four pages of the volume are taken up by a discussion about illiteracy in Ireland. In addition to that there are four elaborate tables, there is one coloured plate, and two coloured diagrams all about illiteracy, and the general impression conveyed is that there is an extraordinary amount of illiteracy in Ireland. Mr. Frank Sullivan recently contributed to "The Leader," a Dublin weekly publication, an interesting article on the matter, and it brings out all the, points. He wrote:— According to our Census Returns there were in Ireland, 1901, 91,819 children over five years and under six. Of these no fewer than 59,206 are returned as 'illiterates,' and this enormous number—59,206—enters into the Registrar-General's calculations when calculating the 'Percentage of illiteracy.' which he returns as 13.7; 59,206, it may be remarked, is 64 per cent, of the total number of children (91,819) who are five and under six, so that it can easily be seen that the inclusion of these 59,206 tends to make Ireland appear worse educated than it is. In America, and in most European countries, children of five are wholly left out of calculations as to percentages of illiteracy. This of course is the proper method. It is absurd to talk of persons as 'illiterates, live years old.' Of six years and under seven there were 90,257 children, and 34,267 of these could not read, and go to swell the grand total of illiterates, and to raise our percentage of illiteracy to 13.7; 34,257 is 38 per cent, of the total at that age (90,257). And in most other countries they—like those of five—would be omitted from all calculations as to percentages of illiteracy. In Ireland, however, we are a self-decrying people, and our statisticians cheerfully add the 'illiterates of six to the illiterates of five,' and so raise the percentage of illiteracy to 13.7. According to the Census Returns for 1901 the percentage of illiteracy for Ireland was 13.7 (page 393 part 2, also diagram 6). This means that of 100 persons five years old and upwards fourteen (13.7 accurately) could not read. Of the remaining eighty-six seventy-nine could read and write, whilst seven could read only. The proportion, 13.7 in 100, of illiterates is very high, and hence Ireland has a reputation of being a backward country educationally. What makes the extraordinary arrangement of starting at the age of five so pronounced is that in these diagrams and the Census Returns, which give the number of the population from five years old and upwards, it is immediately followed by a diagram which deals with the educational statistics of the population, and, as far as those statistics are concerned, the children are only counted for school-going purposes, from the age of six up to the age of fourteen, so that the child is not supposed to go to school at all until six years of age. But, unfortunately, the child happens to be only five years of age when returned as illiterate, although, when he goes to school at the age of six, seven, and so on, he for the first time gets an opportunity of learning how to read and write. In addition to the main facts which I have brought before the Committee being utilised, as is the way with modern historians, who take hold of a Blue Book and extract from it a long figure, and with the aid of the imagination draw a vivid picture, immediately following these diagrams of the general percentage of illiteracy throughout the country, there is brought in a division of the people according to their religion. Of course, as will happen in Ireland, being mainly a Catholic country, and a great portion of the Catholic people living in the country districts, it so happens that when these diagrams are published, it looks as if the Catholic people of Ireland are infinitely worse educated than the people of other religious denominations. So that, apart from the fact that quite an improper idea is given of the total illiteracy of the population of Ireland, there is added this unfair fact that uses are made of these statistics—I do not say deliberately—to show that in the Catholic parts of the country illiteracy is more pronounced than in the other portions. Besides this fact of the illiteracy of the child starting from a ridiculously low age of five, it is interesting to note that if you examine the Irish-speaking part of the country, such as Donegal and my own county of Kerry, the number of illiterates seems to be extraordinary. In the case of Donegal, it would appear from the Census Return that the percentage of illiterates in the whole of Donegal is no less than 26 per cent.

I do not wish to go into the historical part of what is called the illiteracy of the Irish-speaking population of Ireland further than to say that the people now returned as illiterate, when they were young, went, as Irish-speaking children, to a school where the master did not know the Irish language, and they were taught English; but, after leaving school, and going back home, they forgot what they had learned of that language, and went back to the Irish language. When the Census was taken, having forgotten the little English they knew after they left school, they were returned as illiterates. A great many of these Irish-speaking people know their own language well— there are poets in that language—and they are able to recite reams of poetry learned by heart in Irish, yet they are unable to read or write. When these people, in their early years, were denied that proper education which ought to be given to all, and when, in addition, these totals of illiteracy are swollen in the way they are, no wonder the total percentage of illiteracy in Ireland is put at no less than 14 per cent. When the Chief Secretary takes into consideration all these circumstances, I do submit to him that the starting-point for illiteracy returns should not be lower than eight years of age. When we were discussing this matter on a previous occasion, the Chief Secretary agreed to my suggestion that the American figure —which I think is the age of ten—should be taken as a starting-point, but I am quite willing to make the suggestion in the form of the Amendment that I move, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to it, and will take as a starting-point for this very useful return, the age I propose. I sincerely hope that the answer he will give will render it unnecessary that I should take the matter to a Division. I beg to move.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. BIRRELL

I quite agree with the hon. Member that this is an interesting question. I will tell the Committee exactly where it stands. The householder's form, which is left at all houses, contains a column in which is set out "Whether he or she can read or write, can read only, or cannot read." That column is filled up regardless of whether it applies to an infant of six months: it applies to the whole population. Then the Census Commission proceeds to tabulate the information which they are thus getting. It has been always their practice to classify all children under five years of age as illiterate. Having got to know the facts before them, they proceed to classify them, and if they find that a person five years old, whether he or she, could not read or write, that information was included among that pertaining to illiteracy. If you ask me as a human being, I think that is a ridiculously early age at which to cast against anybody a slur upon their intelligence, or upon the care of their parents, because they cannot read or write. There are plenty of instances of children of five who have been able to read and write, and even to know Latin and Greek, not to speak of Irish, which is a difficult language. But the slur should not be brought against any child in my judgment, or against any country which contains a number of children of five years of age, because they cannot read or write. I think it is rather well for a country that a great number of such children should be left with untroubled minds. These tables, however, have been prepared since 1841. The hon. Member naturally and properly is jealous of the reputation of his country, but there is really nothing in these figures which can give him any cause for objection. In 1841, of the population then over five years of age, 53 per cent, were illiterate. In 1901 only 14 per cent, were illiterate, even including those harmless infants of five years of age. I do not think I should like to destroy, for the purposes of comparison hereafter, all the information which we have obtained in these tables, which begin at the age of five, because if we were to abolish them altogether we should have great trouble and confusion arising in the minds of statisticians, because they would be comparing things which were not likes at all; that is to say, comparing the figures of persons of eight years of age who can read or write with persons of five years of age. I do not think my hon. Friend would desire, as it were, to destroy what- ever advantages we have obtained from the statistics which we have carefully collected in reference to people of five years of age. I have knocked on the head, I hope, for a time, this imputation of illiteracy against Ireland by providing that there shall be a new table winch should show the illiteracy of persons of eight years of age, so that the tables of the Census Returns will show the proportion or percentage of the population, eight years and upwards, which can read and write. Therefore you will have in the forefront of the Census Returns this return, providing for persons of eight years and upwards. That will remove any possibility of any imputation being brought generally against the country because children of five years of age are included. I certainly promise that there will be a table of that kind included in the Census Returns. I think eight years of age is a reasonable age. The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Boland) mentioned that in the American system the age is ten, but still children are supposed to go to school at six, and after they have had two years of schooling it is not unreasonable that they should be able to read and write. I do not think, therefore, that eight years of age is unreasonable. I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with the promise to include a table showing the percentage of the population eight years and upwards.

Mr. BOLAND

I am quite satisfied with the undertaking which the Chief Secretary has given, if you will only qualify it in this way. I understand that he will still continue, as under the old system, to collect statistics of illiteracy, starting from the age of one, two, three, four, five, and so on. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me an undertaking that as far as what I may call the statistics of illiteracy in the Census Returns that they will only take from the age of eight I shall be satisfied.

Mr. BIRRELL

Yes; that is what I intend.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I think the age of eight is quite too young. The right hon. Gentleman has laid down a very important proposition just now. He says that taking six as a school age, a child ought to be able to read and write after two years. The thing is absurd. There is not a child able to read and write, taking the ordinary schools, under at least three years. The children in Germany and France can learn to read and write much more quickly, and in Germany in nine months. We just throw away two years of the children's lives by the abominable system of spelling in the English language. The right hon. Gentleman, who is an English educationist, now lays it down that an English child can learn to read and write in two years. I deny it. To my mind the right hon. Gentleman has laid down what is a startling proposition. He has not recalled the controversy that has gone on on this subject for very many years as to the teaching of the children of English-speaking parents compared with those of German, French, Dutch, or Italian nationalities. If he does he will find that he has laid down a proposition which cannot be supported. I do not think any English educationist will support him. I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Boland) is right in taking ten as the age. The matter is not controversial. The right hon. Gentleman must probably have some good reason, which he has not stated to the House, for fixing eight. I hope that between now and the Report stage he will get further information, and that in the interval he will come to a different decision.

Mr. BIRRELL

I am not going to talk about the educational standard, but I should certainly say eight as an age to read and write. I know a great number of men competent and in high positions who can neither read nor write in the proper sense of the words. But this is a Census we are speaking about, and when it is said there that a person can read and write it does not mean read well or write grammatically. It means that they are able to read the most simple book and sign their names. It does not mean any standard. Therefore I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that to say that any child after being two years at school is really learned and able to read and write the English language would be nonsense. But I think that children in two years become literate in the very limited and restricted sense of the Census. think eight years will be found to be suitable, but I will turn the matter over in my mind and see if a year might not be added.

Mr. MOORE

I came in while the matter was being discussed, and I was struck with the observation of the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Boland), who said for other purposes connected with the returns of illiteracy that it was very important we should have what was promised by the Chief Secretary. I wonder what are the purposes? I quite understand how the system of illiterates are understood, and I know that in the views of hon. Members below the Gangway other purposes are generally political purposes. I think there would be nothing in this but for the value of the existing returns for political purposes. We have a number of illiterates who vote at elections, and the Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill) represents the greatest majority of illiterates who vote in any constituency.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.