ear to the appeal of the hon. Member. | great conferences of a non-party character. On the contrary, while he could not At the second twelve of the sixteen agree with his proposals that the Local County Councils were represented, and Government Board should abandon its no party question entered into the decontrol over the administration of poor liberations. He had twice introduced a law in Wales, he admitted that some Bill to obtain these powers; but the alterations might possibly be made. The right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of hon. Member pointed out the desirability administration, would be able to do a of improving the system under which great deal without further legislation. nurses were appointed. It was fre- The County Councils had a practical quently the duty of the Local Govern- share in the work of education in its ment Board to press on the Boards of various branches. They were directly Guardians the necessity of carrying out represented in the University of Wales; this duty. Reserving the full right to they appointed representatives to the be absolved from any distinct pledge on University College; they nominated a the subject, he assured the hon. Mem- majority of the County governing bodies, ber that he should approach the question and these governing bodies had for some in the spirit the hon. Member would time past met in a general conference, desire, acknowledging that there was whose deliberations showed that Welshmuch in what he had said which deserved, men of all classes could combine for great and should receive, consideration. administrative objects. The work of the Government departments in London was becoming enormous. He hoped that when the proper time came the right hon. Gentleman, acting in the spirit of the speech which he had just made, to their great gratification, would make up his mind that something effective should at last be done to carry out the policy of the Government which passed the Local Government Act of 1888. FEE GRANT (IRELAND). MR. H. LEWIS said that Members from Wales on both sides would feel exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the tone of his reply, for the practical concession he had made, and for consenting to consider the suggestions they had offered. But the right hon. Gentleman was in error in saying that this was the first time the question had been raised. It was true that this was the first time the question had been raised since the Debate of 1888. He held in his hand a number of official resolutions which had been passed by *MR. KNOX rose to call attention to the County Councils of South Wales and the distribution of the Fee Grant beMonmouthshire since the passing of the tween England, Ireland, and Scotland. Act of 1888, which indicated the interest In the year 1891 the then Chancellor of that had been taken in it. Owing to the Exchequer the present First Lord the Debates in the House of Commons, of the Admiralty-found himself able to great interest was excited in Wales upon give free education to England. In the the subject, and nearly every County first year the right hon. Gentleman estiCouncil in Wales unanimously passed a mated that the comparatively small sum resolution to the effect that it was desir- of £900,000 would be necessary for the able that the Local Government Board purpose, and when he gave the present should act on the powers it had under larger sum for free education to England Section 10 of the Local Government Act. he admitted that it was only fair that They considered that an association of an equivalent sum should be given to Welsh County Members should be formed Ireland and Scotland. Scotland had to receive the powers the Local Govern- partially free education at the time, but ment Board was to confer. The Local Ireland had not, and it was found imGovernment Board did make a serious possible to give it to her that year, attempt to delegate its powers and those having regard to Parliamentary time. of other Departments to the County But the right hon. Gentleman laid Councils, but that attempt was defeated down the principle that he would by the action of the smaller boroughs make an equivalent Grant to Ireland and of the municipal Coporations Asso- and Scotland, based, not on the educiation. The Welsh County Councils cational needs of these countries, but were disappointed, and they held two on their contributions to the revenue Mr. Henry Chaplin. an exaggera of the United Kingdom. He agreed that | The question, he added, affected Irethe equivalent grant to Scotland should be land even more vitally than Scotland, eleven-eightieths, and the equivalent grant and would probably make a difference in to Ireland nine-eightieths of the English her case of £80,000 or £100,000. As a grant. The Secretary to the Treasury had matter of fact that was denied that there was any Parliamentary contract, but he could satisfy the tion, but it did make a difference of House that there was. In 1891, in £70,000 to Ireland. The point of the answer to a question by the hon. hon. Member was evidently considered Member for the St. Rollox Division of to be one of great importance, because Glasgow, the then Chancellor of the the right hon. Gentleman the present Exchequer said :Leader of the House replied to him and argued that the balance of advantage was on the whole in favour of the scheme proposed by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman added that On another occasion, when the right the only other principle on which to hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs allocate the money was that stated by had urged that the Lord Advocate's the Chancellor of the Exchequer statement in introducing the Bill was not explicit enough on the point whether Scotland was to have the benefit of an increase in the grant, year by year, in proportion to the increase in the English grant, the Lord Advocate said : "My Budget Estimate was prepared upon the basis that the Education Grant would be distributed in the proportion of 80 per cent. to England, 11 per cent. to Scotland, and 9 per cent. to Ireland." "I thought I made it clear enough that this amount is to vary in the proportion I have indicated, as the English amount varies." namely, to pay cach country an amount proportionate to that which the country paid to the general Exchequer of the Empire; that was the plan adopted in the Bill, but if it should turn out in future that the average attendance in England was changed, it might be necessary to modify the proportion of Scotland, so as to make it bear a better proportion to the English grant. But they could not treat Scotland and Ireland as if they were on the same basis as England. They were not on the same basis. was the right hon. Gentleman's contention, and showed very clearly that the proportions were fixed, not on a con"The proportion fixed by the Treasury sideration of educational needs, but officials has been borne out by the experience of on a consideration of relative conthree successive years. Further, the matter tributions to the Exchequer. has not been concluded once for all. By the words which now find a place in the Bill, it will always be open till the House comes to a more perfect state of knowledge on the question.' When the Scotch Bill came on for dis- one This The matter was argued out on the Scotch Bill, and he defied any reasonable man to read through the reports of what took place on that Bill, to say that there was not a Parliamentary contract by which eleven-eightieths of the English_grant should be paid to Scotland and nineeightieths to Ireland. Now, precisely the same words were used in the Irish Bill of the same year that were used in the Scotch Bill, and Would the Govtherefore, what was said about the Bill applied to the other. The ernment promise that there should be a matter was raised in even a more precise Select Committee to inquire into this form by the hon. Member for Caithness. matter, or a special reference made to The hon. Member took up the ground that the principle was altogether a false one, and he moved an Amendment to leave out the £265,000, and he used these words:-- "We have 540,000 childreu in average attendance, and the Grant of 10s. per head weuld amount to £270,000, £4,000 or £5,000 more than we get under the Bill" He the Public Accounts Committee? pledged himself that he and his hon. Friends would absolutely abide by the decision, without trying to raise the matter again. The question was so clear that he would be glad to lay the matter before any independent body for decision, and to abide absolutely by what it said. The same words were used precisely in the two Acts. The Irish Act said same words precisely as the Irish grant, that: : "There should be an annual grant of £210,000, or of such other amount as Parliament may determine, having reference to the amount of the fee grant under the Elementary Education Act, 1881." amount as but they did not increase it enough. They made no allowance for the Supplementary Estimates which were made for English education in each year, and in no year did they give Scotland her proportion of these Supplementary Estimates though they did give her her That solemn Parliamentary contract had proportion of the ordinary Estinot been carried out in any single year mates. The Treasury had deprived since it was made. As far as Ireland Ireland of this money knowing that was concerned, she ought to have got in Ireland ought to get it. He was not each year £210,000, or such other attacking the Secretary to the Treasury Parliament determined, personally. He was not then at the having regard to the English fee grant. Treasury. It was a matter of principle. The first full year was 1892-3, and Eng- Governments might come in, Governland got £1,942,000; Ireland, in pro- ments might go out, but the Treasury portion, should have received £218,000, still ground Ireland year by year. but, as a matter of fact, Ireland only was the policy of the Department he received £156,000. The Irish Educa- was objecting to, and he submitted that tion Act did not come into force until if there was and he was ready to prove a portion of the financial year had it before any impartial tribunal, the gone by, but Ireland was not compen- Public Accounts Committee if it was sated for the loss which she thereby desired-if there was a solemn Parliasuffered. There was, therefore, a breach mentary contract by which these proof the spirit of the contract entered into portions of the English grant should be by the right hon. Member for St. given every year to Ireland and Scotland George's. If the Government were and it had been broken, was it not a unable to employ the money for free miserable thing that the Treasury of this education in Ireland, then it was their rich country should say that the responduty to see that the money was employed sibility did not belong to them, but that for some other educational purpose. But the blame must lie on the ignorance of they kept the money in the Treasury. the Irish Education Department? The In 1893-4 Ireland ought to have re- right hon. Gentleman had suggested ceived £238,000, but she only received another defence, namely, that the Irish £210,000; and in 1894-5 Ireland re- Members ought to have called attention ceived £33,000 less than she ought to to the matter sooner. Other Members have got. It was the business of the Trea- had at times access to official information. sury to see that the Act of Parliament The Irish Members never had. They was carried out in letter and in spirit. always stood outside the departments They tried to shift the responsibility on trying to get justice done without any the Irish National Board; but that did inner knowledge of what was going on. not avail them, for the National Board The Irish Members had done their duty was itself the creation of England. It in these matters, but they had been frewas true that the composition of the quently over-reached by the Treasury. Board had been improved recently by It was not fair to lay the blame on the the addition to it of the Archbishop of Irish Members for it was by them that Dublin and certain other gentlemen, this mistake was first discovered. but when the Board was appointed no had raised the question in 1894. pretence was made that it represented the feelings of the Irish Representatives. For the Treasury to shift the blame on the National Board was merely for one English Department to shift the blame upon another. The Treasury knew perfectly well that the Irish grant should have been annually increased, for year by year the Treasury did increase the Scotch grant, which was ruled by the Mr. Knox. He could only have been raised one Session earlier; and that was the Home Rule Session, when it was not possible to raise these questions of detail. The strain on the minds of men was quite exceptional during that Session, and he did not think that the fact that they omitted to raise the point then could be used as evidence of laches on their part. In the Session of 1894 he raised the : "I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has been able to arrive at a conclusion as to whether, under the Education Act of 1892, the Irish Fee Grant, instead of being a fixed sum, should increase with the increase of the English grant, bearing to that grant the proportion of 9 to 80." To that the late Chief Secretary (Mr. J. "The Treasury, on the representation of the Irish Government, have admitted that, under the Education Act of 1892, the Irish Fee Grant, instead of being a fixed sum, should increase with the increase of the English grant, bearing to that grant the proportion of 9 to 80; and they have agreed to insert in the Estimate for the coming year the increased amount asked for by the Irish Education Commissioners." tract. It question several times. At first he cleared herself of her financial dishonesty found the Chief Secretary had no know- towards the poorer country. Irish ledge of the matter. Subsequently the Members had been frequently told they right hon. Gentleman said he had made ought to respect contracts. Poor Irish out a prima facie case, and by degrees peasants had been run into jail for not he got out of the right hon. Gentle respecting contracts, and why, he asked, man an important answer in the should not the Treasury keep its conearly part of the Session of 1895. tracts on a big scale as well as the poor The Question he asked, on the 14th Irish tenant on a small scale? The only February 1895, was as follows:difference was that there was no remedy at law by which Parliament could be made to disgorge any sum which should have been paid over under any Parliamentary conThey could cover themselves, if they liked, under that defence, just as a man who owed a just debt could plead the Statute of Limitations or infancy or any such plea without, he thought, increasing his credit in the eyes of his fellow men. But they did not get rid contract with Ireland, and that they of the fact that they made a solemn had broken that contract. If an agreement made between the two sides of the House was to be broken in that way, there would be no finality about anything that was done in this House. was the duty of the Government to carry out the intention of Parliament There was also some reference to past when the Act was passed, and to see arrears, he believed, although it was not that these arrears were made good, and mentioned in the Official Report, and he that they got their nine-eightieths of the should have pressed the matter further, English grant from the time when the but the existence of the then Govern- Act was passed. There was another ment was brought to an end. The defence which the right hon. Gentleman Treasury reluctantly admitted the prin- urged, and that was that the need for ciple, and the principle applied to the this money was not so great in Ireland past as well as to the present year. But as in England. That defence was not they did not attempt to put it in force one which was really open to the right in its application to past years, and they hon. Gentleman, for educational needs refused at this moment to put it into were not the basis of the arrangeforce in relation to past years. They did profess to put it in force in reference to a future year-that was the year which was just closing. But how did they do it? They first made a large blunder in the figures of about £9,000. He never understood the basis of the blunder or who made it, but the error was to the disadvantage of Ireland. They then Members opposite taunted them with brought forward another Estimate to the amount of illiteracy in Ireland, and make up that error, but again they yet they refused to keep a contract were wrong, the Estimate being so which was entered into in order that framed that it was still £3,500 short. they should have a constantly-increasing He understood the right hon. Gentleman sum to apply to the needs of their eduwas willing now to rectify that blunder, cation in Ireland. The right hon. but he claimed that there was still a Gentleman had adopted a different prinlarge sum of arrears, and until that was ciple in the Act of this year. It was a dealt with England would not have principle to which he did not object, ment. The basis was that it should be an equivalent grant, and as a matter of fact nobody who knew the condition of schools in Ireland, and the very small payments given to the teachers in Irish schools, could say that really this money was not needed for this purpose in Ireland. From time to time hon. on to the second portion of the sentence which provided that if the £210,000 was not paid then there should be paid such other sum as Parliament might direct during that year. But Parliament had made no direction of that kind. Why had £210,000 been paid instead of this other sum? For the simple reason that no request of any kind for anything beyond the £210,000 had ever been submitted to the Treasury. It was in the power of the hon. Gentleman to raise the question. and if it had been adopted from the first he should have seen no grievance in it. The fee grant was for the future to be divided on the principle of 10s. per head. That was the principle which was originally contended for, and if it had been given at first Ireland would have got £70,000 a year more from the beginning. What he objected to was not that this new principle had been introduced, but that it had been introduced by the Treasury without making up for the arrears which had arisen from the neglect and breach of the *MR. KNOX said he raised it in the old principle. The matter was one Session of 1894. of such great importance that the Archbishop of Dublin had brought it prominently before the Irish public, while both Unionist and Nationalist newspapers had supported it. It was a point of such absolute clearness that, *MR. HANBURY remarked that in as he had said before, he ventured to that case the hon. Gentleman raised the ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he could matter when a Government favourable not at once give the Irish Members an to his political views were in power, and affirmative answer, to place the whole they refused his request. These Estisubject before a Committee or the mates were submitted by the CommisPublic Accounts Committee, and the Irish Members would be perfectly ready to abide by their decision. *MR. HANBURY believed the hon. Member raised it at the end of 1894-5. *MR. KNOX said he raised the question on two separate occasions in the Session of 1894, in August. sioners of Education for Ireland, Why *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY, Preston) said, the hon. Member had laid great stress upon an alleged breach of contract. If any contract had really been broken, he would *MR. KNOX asked if the right hon. say at once that everything he claimed Gentleman did not say the other day that for Ireland ought to be granted. But in February 1895, the Commissioners upon what was the allegation based? asked for a repayment of these arrears, The hon. Member based it upon Amend- and the Treasury refused them? ments which were proposed during the *MR. HANBURY believed, but was passage of the Bill, and on certain not sure, that the Commissioners raised theories which were broached while the the question about February 1895, and Bill was under discussion. What the there was a refusal. Up to the present Government rested upon, however, were year Ireland had received everything in not Amendments of that kind, but upon accordance with the Act. No Parlia the Bill as it now stood in the Statute mentary contract had been broken, beBook, and that Bill made no reference cause the sum directed by Parliament whatever to the nine-eightieths upon had been paid to Ireland. What had which the hon. Member based his whole been the position of the present Governcase. What the Bill said was that the ment since they came into Office? The grant to Ireland should be £210,000 a hon. Gentleman said the Treasury always year, or such other sum as Parliament ground Ireland down. Was that to be should determine, having regard to the laid at the door of the Treasury during English educational fee grant. That the present year? On the contrary, the was exactly what had been done, and, hon. Gentleman had had from the therefore, could not constitute a breach Treasury the utmost he had asked. of Parliamentary contract. The hon. When the late Chief Secretary for Member must admit that Ireland had Ireland promised that Ireland should had the £210,000 a year specifically have nine-eightieths of the English mentioned in the Act. Then he went grants, the promise was hardly carried Mr. Knox. |