INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).— [MONEY.] (Hansard, 8 July 1914)

§ Mr. GRETTON
This subject was debated one Friday afternoon some time ago. It is proposed to take some £40,000 a year from the British Exchequer to increase the salaries of secondary teachers in Ireland, and the Government have a Bill in which it is proposed to make Regulations for better conditions for these teachers. I do not think that in present conditions anyone would oppose that sum of money being granted for that purpose. But it is remarkable that the Government should hurry forward this Bill when they have in another place and hope shortly to pass a Bill for the better government of Ireland, which will hand over the whole management of these matters to a Parliament in Dublin, which will be practically independent of this Parliament. If that Bill should become law, the sum referred to in this Resolution will become payable for ever from the British Exchequer. Further, if this House passes this Resolution, it will hand over to the new Parliament in Dublin this sum over which this House will lose all control. That is probably one of the reasons why the Government is proceeding with such dispatch to pass this Bill. It is a further dole to hon. Members below the Gangway on this side. The only other conclusion which it would be possible to come to would be that the Government themselves believe that the Bill for the better government of Ireland will not pass. and that it is desirable that these arrangements should be made on the assumption 1194 and conviction they hold that the Government of Ireland will go on for many years very much as it is on the floor of this House, and the House will make provision accordingly for teachers of intermediate education in Ireland. These matters are perhaps not of very vast importance, but, at any rate, they point which way the wind blows, and I trust that the Committee will not consider that I have intruded upon their time in calling attention to what this Resolution means, with the passing of the Bill which is to be founded upon it and become law.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move, after the word "Grant," to insert the words "not exceeding forty thousand pounds."
I have looked in vain on the Paper for this Money Resolution. I see that the Resolution in respect of the Merchant Shipping (Convention) Bill has been put down, but not the Resolution relating to intermediate education in Ireland. I do not quite know—not having the Resolution—whether the sum is limited to the sum of £40,000 per annum, and in the circumstances I move the Amendment.

§ Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland)
The sum is stated in the Bill.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Very likely, but if there is no limit in the Resolution it would empower the Committee to alter the sum of £40,000 in the Bill to £80,000, or anything else they liked. The point of putting no limit into the Resolution is that the Committee might have the power to alter the amount, and therefore it is necessary. I am afraid to move my Amendment to limit the sum, but as it is £40,000 in the Bill I have no doubt the amount will be accepted by the hon. Gentleman. We are now, or we are shortly, going to have a Bill for the better government of Ireland, and if we are to have that Bill within two or three months, why, I ask, should this matter not be deferred until the Irish Parliament is set up. Why are we now legislating for Ireland? How is it that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who are so anxious to show that a Parliament can be run in a proper manner in Dublin, are not ready to begin arranging for intermediate education in their own country instead of coming to this House to ask us to pass a Bill for the furtherance of that education, while at the same time they do not pay. I submit that the reason is that they are 1195 not quite certain that they will get any Home Rule Bill, and they think that it is better to get this out of our pockets. I am not sure that they are not right, but, as I am one of the persons who have got to find the money, I am a little bit inclined to say that I prefer to leave it in order to see how they will manage these things in Ireland.

§ Mr. DILLON
I have not the slightest objection to the Amendment, but the hon. Baronet put a question to which, I think, ha is entitled to get an answer. He asked why are we, while the Bill for the better government of Ireland is at present before the House of Lords, asking this House to legislate for Ireland and to make some provision out of the pockets of British taxpayers for it? I will tell him why. It is because the people of this country owe an enormous amount to the people of Ireland. There never was a people more brutally and more cruelly treated than the Irish people by this Parliament in the matter of education. Anybody who knows anything of the history of Ireland—I do not think there will be any contention over this proposition—will say that there never was a people who showed themselves more intensely and passionately devoted to the question of education than the Irish.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Perhaps we had better dispose of the Amendment, which is generally accepted.

§ Mr. RUSSELL
Perhaps the House will allow me to state, in the unavoidable absence of the Chief Secretary, that the Government accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. DILLON
I have only a very few words to add to what I was saying as to the reasons why we ask the House to make provision for Irish secondary education. Of all branches of education in Ireland this one has been almost ruined and starved through the legislation of this House. The hon. Baronet is one of those who insists up to the present moment that we should not have the right to look after our own interests. If he were to get up and say, and if he were in a position to speak for his own party, "Drop this demand for £40,000 a year and I and my party will support the Home Rule Bill, 1196 unaltered by an amending Bill," I would give him back his £40,000 at once. There is a fair offer. If he speaks for the Conservative party and says, "Take your Home Rule Bill and attend to your own education," I will give him back tomorrow the £40,000. I do not expect that he will accept that offer. Then what right has he to complain of us, so long as we are coerced to look to this House for legislation and for the government of our country and people, if we seek to benefit the condition of our people, above all in point of education? But I know that the hon. Baronet is not going to do what I suggest. There is another reason why we ask for this money. These teachers are the most oppressed and most ill-used class of people in the North of Ireland. There is no difference of opinion amongst us on that point. Irish Unionists are quite as hot on this subject as I am, and they support me thoroughly on this Bill. These poor teachers have been neglected and overlooked, and they are really a most ill-treated class of people.
The hon. Baronet talks about isudden zeal at this late hour before we get Home Rule, but in reality it is most belated. We have been at the matter for thirty years, and have been endeavouring to get some assistance for intermediate education, but the Treasury sternly refused until at last We have succeeded in softening their hearts and getting this £40,000. This is a matter of enormous importance to the unfortunate teachers. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) when he said it is remarkable that the Government should hurry forward this Bill when the Home Rule Bill is before the House of Lords. It is most extraordinary to attribute hurrying forward to the Treasury for intermediate education in Ireland when millions are being and have been spent by the Treasury on intermediate education in England and Scotland, and when intermediate education in England is enriched by the inheritance of ages and rich endowments, whereas in Ireland almost all the endowments have been swept away and intermediate education reduced to such a state of things that when I was a boy in the poorer districts they had hardly a roof over their heads for it. In those days I have known men ragged and barefooted who could repeat whole books of Homer, and who learned Greek and Latin in the hedge-schools with hardly a roof over their heads, 1197 such was the innate love of learning of the Irish people. It is because of that we really do feel very strongly on the matter. Really I am wasting the time of the House, because I know that the two hon. Members would not in their hearts oppose this Bill.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not intend to oppose the Money Resolution. I only rose to move the Amendment which has been accepted, and to venture very humbly to protest against Ireland using this effete Chamber for the purpose of legislation when a new and excellent Chamber perfect in all its details would soon be at their disposal. The hon. Gentleman makes me an offer. He says that if I agreed to Home Rule, that he would abandon the £40,000.

§ Mr. DILLON
On behalf of your party.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Of course, I could not do so as I am a very humble Member, but the offer is not a good one, because he and his friends are to get £2,200,000, and in exchange he offers £40,000. I think this Money Resolution is rather a commentary on what is going on at present. I should be very glad that the Irish people of whom the hon. Member talks would be able to repeat Homer. I learned Homer under a roof, but I could not repeat any of it now. That may be my misfortune. However, I shall certainly not oppose the further stages of the Resolution. According to the hon. Member this is a very important matter, and if that is so why are we not blessed with the presence of the Chief Secretary. Is he dining with the American Ambassador?

§ Mr. RUSSELL
No, he is engaged.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
With another Ambassador.

§ Mr. RUSSELL
No.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The society of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite is very pleasant to the various Ambassadors, but it is also to us, and I think we ought to have their presence in preference to Ambassadors, American or otherwise.

§ Mr. HEWINS
As far as I am concerned, I may inform the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that I agree entirely as to the unhappy course of legislation by this Government in the past with regard to education. I do not, however, desire to discuss that, but I rise to know exactly where we are. 1198 I understand that in another place they are at the present moment considering a Bill which I presume in course of time will come down here. Under the Home Rule Bill as it passed from this House education is one of the functions which is to be exercised by the Irish Parliament.

§ Mr. BOOTH
On a point of Order. Can we discuss the merits of an Education Bill or the Home Rule Bill on a pure Money Resolution?

§ Mr. HEWINS
The Resolution we are now discussing has a bearing on the financial provisions. These are merely questions of fact.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not entitled to review the whole situation. I think he is entitled to ask how this may be affected by concurrent legislation.

§ Mr. HEWINS
That is all I want to ask. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Amending Bill, or rather its demerits. My point is this: If the different functions are split up by the Amending Bill, who is going to have this £40,000? Is the Irish Parliament to have it, and how is it to be distributed?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think that would be better discussed when we come to the Clauses of the Bill rather than on a Money Resolution, which only empowers the House to proceed to consider the matter.

§ Mr. HEWINS
I do not, of course, dispute your ruling, but it seems to me a very vital question to know where this £40,000 is going to be enjoyed, and if it is to be by the whole of Ireland or by the Parliament which represents part of Ireland? I can only express my astonishment that hon. Members below the Gangway have not proceeded to consider that question.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I certainly shall not oppose the Resolution, but I would remind the Government that there is a large sum at present overdue to English secondary education.