asked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been drawn to the proceedings in the case of Elizabeth Ingram, as reported in "The Times" of the 1st of March; and, if it is his intention, in view of the circumstances the trial brought to light, to introduce any measure placing all persons practising in midwifery under more immediate supervision than at present, and giving power to the local authority, on the report of a coroner, or other due cause shown, to suspend them from the exercise of their practice?

Sir, my attention has not been directed to this case, otherwise than by the reports in the newspapers. It would appear that the prisoner alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was acquitted on the score of ignorance; so that if she had known the danger involved in her attendance, it is possible that she might have been liable to punishment. The whole subject of the registration of midwives, and the possibility of putting in force some such powers as those suggested by the hon. Gentleman, have been frequently under the consideration of the Local Government Board, and only quite recently it has formed the subject of a correspondence between myself and the Home Secretary. Oases of a similar nature to that which is referred to have occurred at Leicester and Wolverhampton; and in one case the person who was supposed to have communicated the fever was a medical practitioner, and in the other a midwife. The question is a difficult one, and is now under the consideration of the Government, and the hon. Gentleman may rest assurred we will not lose sight of it.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer (in reference to his reply to a Question on the 22nd ultimo), If he will state to the House by what Act of Parliament or other authority are Bank of England and Bank of Ireland notes declared a legal tender in Ireland, to the prejudice of the notes of the National Bank, the Provincial Bank, and the Northern Banks of issue?

, in reply, said, that he was afraid he had inadvertently made a mistake in the matter. No instructions whatever had been issued to the clerks in the Customs and Excise Departments as respected the bank notes they were to receive in payment of the revenue. They might exercise their own option as to what notes they would receive, they being held responsible for all the money they might receive.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Bill promised in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, for the Prevention of the Pollution of Rivers, will be extended to Scotland as well as to England; or whether he will bring forward a measure of the same kind for Scotland?

, in reply, said, that the Government had already issued a Royal Commission to inquire specially into the pollution of the Clyde and its tributaries, but whether they would be able to bring in a Bill relating to Scotland until that Commission had reported, or to extend the Bill for England to Scotland, was under the consideration of the Government. He should be happy to give an answer to the Question after Easter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the numerous robberies of jewels that have lately occurred in London and its neighbourhood, and whether he will institute an inquiry into the conduct of the police on account of their apparent inability either to prevent the crimes or detect the perpetrators?

Sir, it is quite true that valuable jewels have lately been stolen from the Great Western Railway Station, and that a number of burglaries, resulting in the loss of similar property, have been reported from the neighbourhood of Windsor. But in no case have these occurrences happened within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police. I am happy to say that within their jurisdiction robberies have been extremely rare of late, owing, as we believe, to the system of night patrols which has been established for the special purpose of preventing burglaries. Every assistance will be given to the county police in the neighbourhood of Windsor for the detection of the perpetrators of the recent burglaries there, and the prevention of similar occurrences in future. At the same time, it would be well that a little more care should be exercised by the owners of valuable property than has sometimes been the case hitherto. I may also state to the House that several members of a well-known gang of burglars have recently been apprehended and sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the inconvenience to suitors at the assizes occasioned by the clerks of assize and associates not being authorized to sell the stamps required for the entry of causes; and, whether there is any objection to allow such officers to sell the necessary stamps for that purpose?

, in reply, said, his attention had not been drawn to the matter, and he was therefore not prepared to say whe- ther there was anything objectionable in it. No complaints had been received on the subject by the Board of Inland Revenue.

, in rising to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Primary Education (Ireland), 1870; and to move—

"That in order to make Primary Education in Ireland efficient, it is essential to provide well trained teachers, fitting school buildings and teachers' residences, and adequate remuneration for the teachers; and that these objects can best be attained by supplementing the present system of training teachers by the establishment of non-vested training schools which might receive grants for teachers efficiently trained; by a contribution out of local rates to the erection and maintenance of school houses and residences under local management, such contributions to be supplemented by grants; by continuing and extending the present system of payments for results; by requiring local contributions from rates or otherwise (a free residence to be considered as equivalent to local aid to the amount of its fair value); and by assisting teachers to obtain deferred annuities,"

said: The national system of education in Ireland has been in existence 40 years: in that time it has done much good, and excited much controversy: it has covered the country with a network of schools; most of them filled with scholars of all religions, some nearly empty or filled with children of one religion exclusively. It has enlisted warm sympathy and aroused vigorous antagonism; and questions connected with it have excited the warmest feelings, I had almost said passions; and been avoided in consequence by cautious politicians. So much has this been the case that when the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with that sincere zeal for good administration with which we all justly credit him, resolved, as appears by his letter of November last, to grapple with its difficulties, I can well imagine some of the older and more cautious of his colleagues warning him off the perils of the task in the words of the Roman—

"Peliculosæ plenum opus aleæ

Tractas, et incedis per ignes suppositos cineri doloso."

Sir, let me in the commencement of my remarks assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House, that I have no intention of stirring up the smouldering embers of controversy or agitating the "burning questions" of Irish education. I desire, in the interests of education, to take stock, as it were, of its present position in Ireland, in order to see whether by reasonable and calm discussion remedies for defects or moans of amelioration may be suggested. I think that no better ground-work for this purpose could be taken than the Report of the Royal Commission to which I wish to draw attention. It was a Commission eminently calculated to command public confidence, being admirably constituted for the purpose it had in hand. It was presided over by an English Nobleman (Earl Powis) eminent for ability, industry, and impartiality: four of its Members were peculiarly qualified to speak on educational subjects; Sir Robert Kane and Professor Sullivan who were Irish, and Mr. Cowie and Mr. Stokes who were English. It comprised seven Protestants—including one Bishop and two clergymen—and seven Catholics, all laymen; and its recommendations are the more entitled to respect, in that of 14 Members 11 signed the Report, the only dissentients being three of the Irish Members of the body; although some others dissented from individual recommendations. No formal action has been taken to give effect to their recommendations, but many of the most valuable of them have been carried out by the Commissioners of National Education themselves. These recommendations were embodied in 129 paragraphs, and of these 18 have been carried out, including those in favour of maintaining the system of administering the Education Grant by an unpaid board in preference to appointing paid Commissioners; an increase in the class, salaries, and re-arrangement of the teaching body, with the abolition of the inferior class of teachers called probationers; the adoption of an agreement for three months' notice to terminate agreements between teachers and managers of schools; the placing of convent schools on the same footing as the other schools of the country; and, most important of all, the introduction of the system of payment by results. The first question is, "What is the state of primary education in Ireland? And on this point the conclusions of the Commissioners reveal a state of things which is most unsatisfactory; and, although there has been, since the date of their Report, as I shall point out, some improvement, that state of things substantially continues. Of the whole number of children of school age in Ireland only 45 per cent were at school on any one clay: of the children on the rolls of the National schools less than 40 per cent was the average daily attendance: it is true that the average attendance of those on the rolls in other schools was higher; being in Church education schools 50 per cent. and in Christian Brothers schools 71 per cent. but we have now to deal with National schools. Nor was the progress of the children better than the attendance. 45 per cent of all the children are "in the first book," that is little more than learning their letters. In the examinations by the Inspectors, in 1867, before the system of payment by results was introduced, less than 30 per cent of the pupils on the roll were presented for examination, only 18·6 passed in reading, 7·8 in writing, and 6·2 in writing from dictation. The Commissioners say—

"The progress of the children in the National schools of Ireland is very much less than it ought to he. We have come to the conclusion that, although there are few places in Ireland where children have not the means of education within reach, the results hitherto achieved are far below what is desirable. The system if not retrograding in efficiency, is at least stationary, and stationary at a very unsatisfactory level."

Now, Sir, that is a state of things which I think calls for a remedy, and for which I therefore venture to suggest one. The Commissioners attribute the bad state of primary education to two causes—the irregular attendance of the children, and the inefficiency of the teaching; for the first they see no remedy but compulsion, which they do not recommend; and, although I myself look forward to the not distant clay when school attendance may be made compulsory; yet, no doubt, the country is not yet prepared for it. As to the efficiency of the teachers, I do not wish to depreciate them. I regard them generally as an excellent, and, allowance being made for want of training, an efficient body of men; and I agree with the Commissioners that the inefficiency complained of is mainly due to the inadequacy of the salaries. They say—

"The general opinion of their efficiency formed by witnesses not connected with the National system is favourable, but there is also abundant testimony to the general desire for their improvement;"

and they adopt the words of Mr. Richmond—

"The National teachers generally struck me as quite as intelligent a body as we have a right to expect considering the emoluments offered to them. I frequently heard the complaint made that the teachers are half educated or less than half educated men. I entirely concur in the view that one of the first steps requisite for the improvement of education in Ireland is to raise the average standard of competency in the teachers; but none the less does it appear to me that the average standard already attained is quite as high as it is possible to reach without an advance in the attractions offered."

The last part of my Resolution treats of the emoluments of the teachers. But there is one point connected with the efficiency of teachers on which the Commissioners laid the greatest stress, and that is the want of scientific training. So, also, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, on the part of Lord Russell's Government, in his letter of the 19th of June, 18G6, said the want of training for teachers was "a state of things they viewed with much concern;" and the present Chief Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said, in his letter of the 5th of November, 1874, that the present Government "desired to take into their serious consideration the vast number of untrained teachers employed in the National schools." Contrast the state of things in Ireland with that in other countries. In all other countries that I know the course of training in normal schools is at least two years. In England five years are spent by a student as a pupil teacher, and two years in a normal school. In Ireland only a small proportion of the teachers receive any training; and what is the amount of training that small proportion receive? In the first place, they are not trained at all until they are put in charge of a school. Inspectors go about the country and select masters already teaching a school, and then send them up for training in the Marlborough Street Normal School. What time do they remain there? An average of four months and a-half. Now, the Bishop of Manchester, a high authority on these matters, said—

"The value of a second year's training, morally and intellectually, is indisputable. It is the one fact in the entire range of educational questions upon which there is an entire consensus."

I should have thought it unnecessary to occupy the time of the House with proving the necessity of training for Irish teachers, had I not seen it asserted in The Daily News of this day that there is an abundance of sufficiently well-trained teachers in Ireland, although they do not get the same training as in England. That was not the opinion of one, whom to name is to honour—the late Sir Alexander Macdonnell, who for 40 years presided over national education in Ireland. He said to the Commissioners in 1868—

"The evil is a great one. We know very well that 45 per cent of the pupils are in the first hook. I believe that learning the alphabet and first book takes very nearly two years under the common method of teaching. I believe, when the art of teaching is thoroughly understood by trained teachers, the length of time taken in mastering the first and most difficult book would probably be diminished by one-half."

Let me also read a letter on this subject from Mr. Renouf, one of the School Inspectors under the Privy Council in England, and who was employed by the Royal Commissioners to inspect the schools in Ireland. He writes—

"While examining schools in the counties of Waterford, Wexford, Tipperary, and Kilkenny, I was careful to bear in mind the very different circumstances under which I was accustomed to examine and report upon the schools of my own district in England. But, every allowance being made for the difference of circumstances, it was altogether impossible to avoid perceiving that the efficiency of the Irish schools was not only inferior in degree, but even in kind. The teachers and children were everywhere fully as intelligent as the teachers and children in England, yet not only did the children break down in examinations of the mildest character, such as I should not have been allowed to hold in an English school under inspection, but their teachers seemed to be totally ignorant of the amount, and still more so of the quality, of instruction which might fairly be expected from those under their care, especially from the lowest classes of the school. The first school which I inspected on my return to England—St. Patrick's, at Walsall, was almost as thoroughly Irish a school as any I had seen in Ireland—the priest, the teachers, and the children being all Irish Catholics; but the amount of work done by the First Standard children, the accuracy and style of it, were such as perhaps not one of the teachers I had seen on the other side of the water had a conception of. How could it he otherwise? The teachers in Ireland had—at least in general, not been taught how to teach."

The number of trained teachers in Ireland was 3,842; the number of untrained teachers there was 6,118. Contrast the state of matters in Ireland with what it is in England and Scotland. In England there are 39 training schools with 2,894 students, receiving a grant of £95,200. In Scotland there are five training schools with 704 students, receiving a grant of £21,500. In Ireland there is only one normal school, with 218 students, receiving a grant of £7,646. The larger number of the National Schools in Ireland are frequented mainly—most of them entirely—by Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholics form the great bulk of the teachers. Of these there are 2,640 trained, and 5,007 untrained. A larger proportion of the Protestant teachers had received training, but a very largo number of Protestant teachers are untrained. Even if the Marlborough Street Training School were full, its capacity for turning out teachers is very limited. The number of teachers required to fill vacancies occurring annually in Ireland is 700. From the year 1838 to the year 1857 the number of trained teachers which that school turned out averaged about 270 a-year, and that rate has not increased, the number turned out last year being only 207. It is true that there exist certain district model schools appointed for training, and that these in some degree help to supply the want, but only in a small degree; the number of trained teachers they are able to send out not exceeding 90 annually. Thus, at present, the total annual supply of trained teachers does not exceed 290, while the number actually required is 700. There is another reason why the present masters in Ireland are not trained, and that is the deep-seated and well-founded objection of the Roman Catholics to the present training schools. This, Sir, is the state of things which the Resolution I propose says requires a remedy, and for which I suggest one. As to what the remedy should be, it is important to consider what Lord Stanley, in a letter which might be considered the charter of the National schools, said, on the subject—"The teacher shall be required to receive previous instruction in a model school in Dublin to be sanctioned by the Board;" but, curiously enough, as the Commissioners pointed out, it got into print in a considerably altered form—from corrections made, it was supposed, when passing through the National Education Office. The form it assumes is—"shall have received previous instruction in a model school to be established in Dublin." That, in my opinion, was the fatal error. Instead of allowing free and independent training schools, controlled by Government, the State undertook the management of the schools entirely, and therefore they failed. The greatest difficulty in carrying-out the present system is caused by the objection felt by the Roman Catholics. The Royal Commissioners, referring to this opposition, say—"The consequence is, that the system of united training for the teachers of Ireland has failed;" and the noble Duke the President of the Council (the Duke of Richmond) said last year—

"Might not the deficiencies as regards trained teachers in Ireland be attributed to the circumstances which has rendered the training of teachers by the mixed system difficult, if not impossible?"

Accordingly, Mr. Chichester Fortescue (now Lord Carlingford), in order to overcome this difficulty, recommended that while the existing training schools should remain exclusively under the control of the Commissioners of National Education they should allow the teachers to reside in approved mensal houses, where they might observe the practices of their religion, and further added—

"The Government prefer to stimulate private enterprise and private zeal to supply the wants which exist; and they therefore propose to encourage the establishment of model (training) schools under local management."

Such also in substance is the recommendations of the Royal Commission; and such the system which I advocate. The adoption of the English and Scotch principle—namely, that the State should dissociate itself from the training of teachers, except as regards the testing of results, and that a certain graduated payment should be made to each school for having given such secular teaching and training as the State requires. In England and Scotland the payment is £100 in the case of men, and £75 in the case of women for every certificated teacher who having been trained, continues teaching a school for two years at least after the receipt of their certificates. Here I wish to prevent a misapprehension which may be caused by the occurrence in my Resolution of the words "non-vested training schools," which have been understood by some friends to mean that they should not be vested for educational purposes at all, and I must therefore explain that in Ireland "vested schools" means schools which are vested in the Commissioners of National Education, while the term "non-vested" is employed to designate the voluntary schools throughout the country. The voluntary training schools should be vested in trustees for the purposes of education. In the training schools which I wish to see established, I do not want the State to have anything to do with the imparting of religious instruction. Let the State pay for the secular result, and for that alone. I may mention that the seven English Commissioners—only one of whom was a Roman Catholic—were unanimously in favour of the recommendations in the Report; but there were three Irish dissentients—namely, Sir Robert Kane, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Gibson. Sir Robert Kane objected to teachers being trained by monks or nuns. For my own part, I think the State ought not to inquire whether the teachers are "religious" or not, but should be satisfied if they are efficient teachers, and I admit I think it probable that the Catholics would prefer to have female teachers instructed by nuns, who are competent and thoroughly devoted to the work. Of the two others, Mr. Gibson does not give any reason, except that—"The training colleges in England were founded altogether on a different principle from that of the Irish model schools." Mr. Wilson gave three reasons; that voluntary training schools would be denominational, which is only saying that those they are intended for prefer them, and are willing to prove their preference by freely paying for them; that they would separate teachers, which is the same objection in another shape; and, thirdly, that they would entail unnecessary expense. If by this he meant that paying for training teachers was unnecessary expense, he differed from all educational authorities; but voluntary training schools, a portion of the expense of which would be defrayed by voluntary aid, would be cheaper than State training schools, the whole cost of which is defrayed by the State. The only other tangible objections I have seen are contained in a memorial lately presented to the Lord Lieutenant (the Luke of Abercorn) by certain Presbyterians in the North of Ireland. Their first objection is that "it would be injurious to Protestants." But another passage in the same memorial seems to me a complete answer to this objection, for they say—

"The proposed schools are designed for, and would he attended by, only teachers of one creed—namely, Catholics."

So they could do no harm to Protestants who might continue to frequent the existing schools. Their second objection is like the first. It is—

"That no new training schools ought to he recognized, because Protestants of all denominations are satisfied with the central training establishment and district model schools."

Now, if this were true, it would prove only that one-fifth of those for whom trained teachers are wanted are satisfied with the present imperfect system of training. But I doubt its truth, because I find that whilst there are 1,146 Protestant teachers who are trained, there are 1,030, or very nearly one-half, who are untrained. Can we doubt, then, that the present training of teachers is grossly deficient, or that the only practical way to improve it, is to avail ourselves of voluntary efforts to supplement the present schools, by schools such as exist in England, and were recommended by the Royal Commissioners and by the Commissioners of National Education in their letter to the Chief Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), of the 10th December, 1874. But if we are to provide trained teachers, to retain them we must increase the attractions of their position, and nothing is more important in this respect than to provide them with residences. The Commissioners say—

"The want of residences for school teachers is also a reasonable cause of discontent. All the witnesses who gave evidence are agreed."

And they adopt the words of one of their Inspectors—

"There is no way in which the Government could improve the status, the loyalty, and the efficiency of the Irish teacher so materially."

There are only 1,400 teachers' residences for 5,000 schools, and the want of a residence is felt more in Ireland than in England. In England, if the teacher can pay for it, he can always procure a residence; in Ireland, frequently there is none to be had near the school. The Commissioners report that the teachers have frequently to walk from three to five miles to their school, and in many cases can procure lodgings only in a public-house, the last place whore a teacher ought to reside. But I wish to state at once that the question of providing residences for teachers is intimately connected, in my opinion, as my Resolution shows, with another question—that of local contributions. There is no use in evading the question; local contributions in Ireland fall far short of what they ought to be. There are, I know, many good reasons why we cannot expect as much in this respect in Ireland as in England. In the first place, you in England have been centuries providing for the needs of the population. You have had for years churches, many schools, and many school endowments. The Irish people, on the other hand, have had within the present century to provide all their churches and all their schools—of National schools alone, nearly 4,000 have been built without any aid from Government. In the second place, in England the landlords reside amongst the people, are of the same creed with them, and contribute very largely to the building and supporting of elementary schools. In Ireland, the landlords are largely non-resident, and, differing in creed from the people, contribute very little to their schools. It should also be borne in mind in estimating the voluntary contributions to primary education in Ireland, that, as the Royal Commissioners point out, nearly £100,000 a-year is subscribed for the support of primary schools other than National. Yet still I do not hesitate to say that voluntary contributions fall short of what may fairly be required; and still more, that primary education can never be put on a satisfactory footing until local interest is more enlisted by local contributions and local management. Such was the conclusion of the Royal Commissioners, who recommend—

"That the grant made by the Commissioners of National Education should bear a fixed pro- portion to the amount locally contributed, and that the Commissioners should maintain this rule in all places except those where they should he satisfied that, after all due local exertion has been made, its application would close a necessary school."

In fairness I should state that there were three Irish dissentients to this recommendation—Sir Robert Kane, Mr. Justice Morris, and Mr. Waldron. But it is no use to lay down the principle of local contributions, unless in default of subscriptions you have a rate to fall back upon. I therefore fully endorse the recommendation of the Commission—

"That, in default of voluntary local payments or school-fees, the requisite local contribution should be raised by rate."

Now, this question of providing teachers' residences affords a very favourable mode of dealing with the subject of local contributions. The Commissioners recommend—

"That a house, or house and garden, should he considered as equivalent to local aid to the amount of its fair value;"

and I believe that whilst a universal school-rate would not be either fair or practicable, local authorities would often be willing to vote money for a school residence. And to facilitate this I would make two suggestions: first, "that loans under the Land Improvement Act should be authorized for providing teachers houses," and, secondly, that in such cases, half the annual instalment might be paid by the National Board, if the other half be provided locally. These recommendations are substantially adopted by the Royal Commissioners and the Board of National Education. The latter estimate the cost of a house at £200; but, I believe, in country districts a sufficient one could be built for £100, the annual instalment would be £5, one-half contributed locally, one-half paid by the Board. I need hardly add that such houses should be vested for the purpose of teachers' residences, not in the National Board, but in local trustees. I now come to the question of the payment of teachers; and, as the House will perceive, I advocate the extension of payment for results in opposition to the increase of class salaries. And here I should not be acting frankly towards the House if I did not state at the outset, that very many of my friends, the Irish Members, differ from me on this point, and that the teachers, as far as can be ascertained, are unanimously in favour of class salaries. Indeed, the teachers have remonstrated against a private Member like myself interfering in a matter which, they say, concerns their interests, and assert that it should have been left wholly in the hands of my Friend the hon. Member for Kildare, who represents them, and who is, in their interest, to move an Amendment to my Resolution. Sir, if the interests of the teachers only were concerned, I would have willingly left them to the able advocacy of my hon. Friend, in whose hands those interests would be much safer than in mine; but there is something much dearer to me than the interests of the teachers—though I sincerely desire to serve them—that is, the interests of education, the interests of the children; and holding the opinions I do, I should be neglecting my duty if, to court popularity, I shrank from urging them. But first let me explain that the question between us is one of degree. The Royal Commissioners recommend that, the class salaries being increased to some extent, all further additions should be made on the principle of payment for results. The addition to salaries which they recommended has been made, and what I urge is, that all further payments should be by results; and first let us see what is the weight of authority on this point. Payment by results in preference to increased salaries was recommended by the Royal Commissioners unanimously; and if any hon. Member will turn to page 294 of their Report they will see the array of competent witnesses by which it was supported. Sir Alexander Macdonnell, the late Resident Commissioner, Mr. Keenan the present one, and all the officers of the National Board who were examined; two Episcopalian and three Roman Catholic Bishops, and, as the Commissioners say, "the majority of those who are practically acquainted with educational details; "whilst the few who were opposed to it were really opposed rather to details. Such was the evidence in its favour before it was tried; but it has now been in operation for three years, and what is the opinion of those most competent to judge? The Commissioners of National Education on the 19th of November, 1874, unanimously recommended that it should be continued and extended. I will trouble the House with but four short extracts from letters I have received on this subject from persons most qualified to speak with authority. The first is Mr. Vere Foster, a gentleman who has devoted more time and money to the promotion of education in Ireland than any other man, and than whom the teachers have not a better friend. He has sent me a series of letters in which at this time he advocates increased payments by results in preference to increased class salaries. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Clogher, whoso diocese embraces the county of Monaghan, writes to me that in his opinion, and that of all the school managers of his diocese, nothing has over done so much to improve the teaching as payment by results, and that they earnestly desire to see it maintained and extended; so also the Bishop of Elphin, whose diocese extends through the counties of Sligo and Roscommon, writes—

"The mixed system of payment partly by salaries and partly by results which is now in use exercises a most salutary influence on teachers, pupils, managers, and parents. I can state as a fact that this system has produced to a. remarkable extent those good effects in the National schools of this diocese, which number over 250."

So also the Roman Catholic Primate, whoso diocese embraces the counties of Armagh and Louth, writes to me on his own part and that of all the priests in his diocese who are school managers to state their approval, founded on experience of payment by results, and their desire for its extension. Sir, these four letters are voluntary testimonies which since the terms of my Motion were published, I have received in its support. I believe the immense majority of school managers of all creeds are favourable to it. I now challenge my hon. Friend and those who oppose me, to produce on their side the opinions, not of school teachers, but of school managers. Such is the weight of evidence, but are there any facts by which we can test the working of the system? There is one very significant one. The Commissioners of National Education in their Report for 1873 point out—

"That whilst there was an increase in the number of children on the rolls of 14,262, there was an increase in the daily average attendance of 17,550."

And they add—

"This increase in the latter shows a decided improvement in the regularity of the children's attendance."

So also the proportion of children on the roll who made the required 90 attendance was 50 per cent. whilst the old average attendance was, as I have shown, only 45 per cent. So also the proportion of children who made the requisite attendances, presented for examination, who passed it most satisfactorily: it is, of infants, 86 per cent; of first class, 80; of the second, 84; of the third, 90; of the fourth, 94; of the fifth, 96; of the sixth, 96 per cent. Let me examine now the objections which have been put toward on the part of the teachers in the documents which have been sent to me and other hon. Members. In the first place, it is said that under the system of results the lion's share of the payment is monopolized by convent and other largo schools. I do not know why convent schools should thus have been put forward, except to excite prejudice; as a matter of fact, convent schools receive loss than others. With the exception of seven, they are not paid class salaries, but a capitation-rate on the scholars which amounts to much less. It is true they are paid like others for results; but do not they earn it? But take the case of large schools in towns. It is true a school of 300 children can earn as much as 10 schools of 30 each; but is not the number taught 10 times as great? Is not the teaching staff required larger, and the labour more severe? Those who know the difference in fatigue and mental strain of teaching in a small country school of 20, and in a crowded town school of hundreds, and have seen, as I have, the strength and health of women worn out in the latter, will not grudge the payments earned in these cases by results. But is it the fact that the teacher of a country school with an average attendance of, say 35, could not earn a fair increment to his salary by results? If hon. Members will turn to page 344, they will see how the Royal Commissioners calculated the probable results of what they proposed. They say—

"A school of 30 in average attendance ought to be able to earn on payment by results about £30."

And they go on to explain how they propose this should be done. They say—

"We have agreed that a third-class teacher should be secured a minimum salary of £24" (what it now is); "results should amount to £11; and to this should be added school fees and a free residence for the teacher."

As, however, the present scale of results payments is somewhat smaller than that recommended by the Commissioners, I have made a similar calculation for myself. Let a country school have an average attendance of 34, of which 10 are infants; of these 80 per cent of passes will give £1 4s.; 15 in first class, 80 per cent of passes will give £3; 6 second class, 80 per cent. will give £1 10s.; 3 third class will give £1 7s.: a total of £7 1s. I have further consulted those connected with the Board most competent to form an opinion, and they assure me the least such a school ought to earn is £8. And let the House remember that if the amount devoted to payment for results be doubled, and consequently the scale raised, the above amount will be doubled also. But I will give the House not only theories but facts; and those not selected for a purpose but the first that have come to hand. In a village school in the county of Louth, whore I live, the average daily attendance in the male school was 39, the number who made 90 attendances being 40. In that case the master's class salary was £24, but he gained by results at the present low standard the sum of £9 11s. 6d.; while in the female school the average daily attendance was 44, the number who made 90 attendances 47; the mistress's salary was £24, and she earned by results £15 14s. 6d. In an instance supplied to me by the hon. Member for the Queen's County (Mr. Dease), in a small mixed school, in the rural part of that county, the master's salary is £30, the amount earned by results was £ 11. But it has been said, a convulsion of nature, such as an earthquake or a flood, may cut off the attendance and deprive the teacher of results. Well, such convulsions of nature are not common; but it so happens I can supply an instance of one. There is a small rural mixed school on my property in a wild district of Galway. Hon. Members may have heard of the moving bog. About 18 months ago this moving bog, covered with a deep flood of mud a considerable tract of my property, and cut off from the school a considerable portion of the children who attended it. Yet for the year 1873 that school earned £17; and this year, although the accounts are not yet made up, the matter stands thus. The master's salary is £24; the average daily attendance 47; the number who made 90 attendances 62; and if they pass, the results fees will be about £20. Sir, much has been made by the teachers of the fact that many hundred schools have earned less than £5; nay, very many less than £1. But does not this suggest the question, not whether such schools receive too little, but rather whether they are worth the class salaries paid? If a school does not produce results to the amount on the present standard of £1, is it worth £24 or £30 of class salary? I will take the most remarkable case which is put forward. A school in the County Wicklow, in a hilly, but by no means a wild or uninhabited district, earned by results only 5s. 9d. Do hon. Members realize what this means? Two infants who passed would have earned 6s.; so there was not that much; one child in the second class would earn 5s.; so this school could not show work for the year equal to teaching two infants "their letters and to read words of two letters," or one child taught the three R's. Nor will the epidemic or storm theory answer these cases. Some hundreds, not to say thousands of schools in Ireland cannot all have been afflicted with an epidemic or a thunder storm on the day fixed for examination; and I do not doubt that in such an extreme case the examination would be transferred to another day. I will notice only two other objections to payment by results put forward in papers which have been sent to me by Teachers' Associations. One is in these words—

"Our deliberate and unanimous opinion, after three years' experience, is that we look upon this system as having completely failed in its objects."

I have given the House the means of judging how far the system has failed in its object of improving education in Ireland. The other objection is—

"It has introduced a wholesale system of cramming, instead of the intellectual teaching which was heretofore the distinguishing characteristic of the instruction given in our National schools."

An "intellectual teaching," in which half the pupils were in the first book, and under which, as Sir Alexander Macdonnell stated, the time occupied in teaching the elements was double what it ought to be. There is one real and serious difficulty in extending the present system of payment by results; but it is one, I believe, easily met. It is the case of schools in very sparsely inhabited districts, where the attendance is permanently and necessarily very small. These cases may be met in either of two ways. Either the Commissioners may be empowered in such districts to exceptionally increase the class salaries; or, what I would much prefer, the scale of results fees might in such districts be raised; so that, for instance, when a result was paid for elsewhere 2s., it might there earn 2s. 6d. By this means a school of 28 in such a district might be enabled to earn as much as one of 35 elsewhere. A very grave grievance on the part of the teachers is the absence of any provision for their declining years. I am fully aware of that fact; but having reflected upon it to the best of my power I have failed to devise any system of pensions which I could recommend with any confidence in its acceptance by the nation. If any one should propose a practicable system of pensions I would support it gladly. The proposal contained in the Report of the Royal Commission was, that teachers might be assisted by Government or local aid by means of deferred annuities. I think that was a practical suggestion which might be adopted, and therefore I have embodied in my Resolution a proposal that teachers should be assisted to obtain deferred annuities. There are, however, great difficulties in paying each year a portion of the premium, and I think the same end may be better attained by a slight modification of the plan. It is that where a teacher has purchased a Post Office deferred annuity of a given amount, which falls due at a certain time, if he has then served 10 years, he shall have an additional annuity of half the amount purchased for him; if 20 years, an annuity of equal value; and if 30 years, an additional annuity representing the value of one and a-half. Sir, I have to thank the House for the patience with which it has listened to what was necessarily a dry, and, I fear, a wearisome statement. I have laid open with an unsparing, but I hope a just and impartial—I am sure with a not unfriendly hand—the shortcomings of primary education in Ireland. It were an easier and a more agreeable task to speak pleasant things. It is always an un- grateful duty—to none more ungrateful than to me—to point out defects and shortcomings.

"Pudet et hæc opprobria nobis

Et dici potuisse et non potuisse refelli."

But it is necessary, in the first place, boldly to face an evil and measure its extent, if we would provide for it an effectual remedy. I have stated what I believe to be the evil; I have suggested what appear to me the appropriate remedies. I venture to ask for these suggestions from the friends of education on both sides of the House a calm and fair, I would even say a favourable consideration; I would ask those who may on some points differ from me to bring forward their suggestions—

"Si quid novisti rectius istis,

Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum."

One thing I entreat you not to do. Do not recognize the evil, yet abstain from applying a remedy. Do not shrink from doing what you see to be right because it may offend prejudice, or acquire you unpopularity. Do not put away the subject because it is difficult; or defer action because it is troublesome. Do not say, "Yet a little time for slumber; yet a little folding of the hands to sleep." I make this appeal, not in the interests of any party, or even in the interests of any particular religion; I make it in the interests of the hundreds of thousands of poor children, who look to you to put within their reach a good, a sound and an available education, so to redress, as far as human laws can redress, the inequalities of fortune and the ills of poverty. I make this appeal in the interests of the Empire whose greatness and whose stability depends on its citizens being well-educated, and therefore reasonably prosperous, contented, and loyal. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

, in rising to oppose the Motion, said: I rise on the part of the National school teachers of Ireland, numbering as they do very nearly 10,000 persons, to protest in the strongest manner possible against the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford which he has just brought forward. I also protest against the introduction by my hon. Friend of several questions into the one Motion, upon some of which most of his Colleagues in the representation of Ireland, including myself, heartily concur with him and of others in which he must necessarily be almost alone. If a direct issue was knit as to the necessity for the institution of properly-regulated training establishments it would be found that very few Irish Representatives would differ from the hon. and gallant Member for Longford. His Motion so far as it affects the teachers is both ill-timed, injudicious, and injurious to them. I object, Sir, to this Motion as being ill-timed and injudicious because at the present moment the Government have under their consideration the case of the teachers, because by the terms of the Resolutions which the hon. and gallant Member has proposed, it is sought to throw obstacles in the way of the Government fairly considering and bringing forward any scheme that would tend to benefit the condition of those whom I represent, and because by introducing political questions, which in my opinion ought to be studiously avoided, the difficulty of obtaining the removal of the grievances so justly complained of has been vastly increased. I think it is highly injurious because the scheme or system which my hon. and gallant Friend has to-night brought before the House ostensibly for the purpose of improving the position of the National school teachers of Ireland, is eminently calculated to make them still more dissatisfied, to disappoint the hopes which they have that something substantial will now be done for the bettering of their condition, and because, in my opinion—putting aside the case of the teachers—education in Ireland must necessarily be injured if his views are adopted. I have already said I entirely concur with my hon. and gallant Friend in the view of the necessity for training establishments, but in my opinion the discussion of that question is seriously hampered and interfered with by being brought forward on this occasion and by being mixed up with the other questions now being considered. In the interests of the teachers, therefore, I at present decline to enter upon any discussion of this matter, or of the more difficult one of local taxation. Last Session I had the honour to bring under the consideration of this House a Motion for the improvement of the condition of the Irish National school teachers. On that occasion it was conclusively shown—and I am not aware that there was any person either inside or outside of this House who denied—that the teachers had real and substantial grievances which ought at once to be redressed. I may divide their complaints into three heads. They complained—1st, that their salaries were not sufficient; 2ndly, of the great want throughout the entire country of residences; and 3rdly, that when they were overtaken by old age or infirmity, no provision was made by which they could obtain pensions. It appeared to be the unanimous opinion of the House that these complaints were all well-founded and ought to be removed; but upon the assurance of the Government that the subject would have the serious consideration of the Government, I with the assent of all the hon. Members who supported me withdrew the Motion and left the matter in the hands of the authorities. During the Recess the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland having the advantage of every information that could be obtained, set to work with a will to make himself acquainted with the facts, and the greatest hopes are felt that a better time for the teachers is at hand. That being so at the commencement of this Session, I advised those who were acting for the National school teachers, and on my advice the great body of teachers throughout Ireland agreed that the proper course to adopt was to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Chief Secretary, and to wait patiently until it was the convenience of the Government to disclose to the House the result of the consideration which he had given to the question. Under these circumstances, the teachers consider that they have hardly been fairly dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member for Longford in having the discussion of this matter brought forward at the present time, and they also complain that my hon. and gallant Friend should have brought on his Motion at such an early period of the Session without giving them fair or due Notice. On Saturday last for the first time the terms of the Resolution were made public and were put down upon the Order Book of this House. The course pursued has precluded the teachers from presenting to this House the numerous Petitions, which they otherwise would have done, against the system now proposed. I may state, however, that in the interval between last Saturday and to-day, I myself have received communications from over 5,000 teachers by means of resolutions passed at, I am informed, more than 200 meetings of Teachers' Associations throughout Ireland, and I believe that the majority of Irish Members have received from their various constituents, memorials and resolutions requesting them to oppose the Motion now brought forward. Indeed, it seems that the hon. and gallant Member for Longford in the course which he has pursued ostensibly for the benefit of the teachers has not the concurrence of a single one of the entire body. [Mr. O'REILLY: The patrons are in favour of my proposals, but I admit the teachers are unanimously opposed.] Thinking as I do, therefore, that the interests of the National teachers would be injured by a discussion of any of the political questions which have been introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend, I will not on the present occasion follow him in those portions of his Motion which deal with training schools or with local taxation. I think the best course for me to adopt will be to state shortly the views which I take of the claims of the National teachers. It appears to me that it is the duty of the Government to see that those employed under, what I must unfortunately call a "State sys- tem" of education, should be properly paid, and that their position should be such that they can honestly and fairly discharge their duties to the public. Once for all, I must protest against this system being called a "National system." Although this system has had the support to a certain extent of all classes and creeds, it still remains a creature of the State, and no other plan but denominational education ought, or, as I believe, ever will, be accepted by Roman Catholics as National. Now, I think I need only recall to the attention of the House the manner in which education in Ireland has been treated for the last 40 years. In 1831 the system now existing was introduced by Lord Stanley, and was most unfavourably received. Neither the Presbyterians nor the Roman Catholics were willing to lend themselves to the plan proposed, but Government after Government so fostered and protected the system that opposition gradually yielded thereto until in 1839 the Presbyterians of Ireland consented to accept the then existing state of affairs; and in 1861 the Roman Catholics, after obtaining certain concessions, gave their adhesion to the system so far as to take advantage of the facilities for education offered. The first Report issued by the Commissioners showed 107,042 children to be in attendance, and the existence of but 789 schools in the entire country. From the last Report which has been presented, it would appear that there are now 974,644 children attending 7,160 schools, that there are 1,353 vested and 5,294 non-vested schools. These figures show conclusively that the facilities for education have been availed of, but the number of non-vested schools show clearly that the Roman Catholics have not adopted the principle of this National education. No volunteer has interfered with the Government in the carrying on and protection of this system. To the Government the teachers look for their remuneration, and upon the Government devolves the duty of providing—if they wish the system to at all succeed—inducements to attract efficient teachers in Ireland. At the present moment the salaries of the Irish National school teachers, as I shall presently show, do not reach the pay of a sub-constable of police, in fact, a household servant or a scavenger here in London are better paid for the work they do. The teachers complain that their salaries are insufficient, they complain that residences should be provided for them close to the schools where they have to teach, and they ask that, when broken down by age or infirmity they should not be left after spending all their life in the service of the public to the workhouse and to a pauper's grave. There are three classes of teachers in Ireland, and all they seek for as to salaries is to have fixed class salaries of £1 per week for third-class, £1 10s. per week for second-class, and £2 per week for first-class teachers. Now, Sir, the number of teachers at the present moment in the service, exclusive of those employed in the convent, monastic and workhouse schools is 9,802, of these 7,488 or 76 per cent receive class salaries of from £20 to £24; 2,113 teachers, or about 21½ per cent. are of the second class, and receive from £80 to £38; and 201 teachers, or 2 per cent. receive from £42 to £52 per annum. The total salaries of all the teachers amounts to £264,882, or an average salary of £27 10s. 2d. per teacher. The results fees for the last year amounted to £90,755, or an average of £9 8s. 6d, while the local emoluments amounted to £61,670, being an average per teacher of £6 8s. 1d. These calculations, which are accurately made from the Returns in the Appendix to the 40th Report of the Commissioners, show that the average salary of the teachers from all these sources amounts to £43 6s. Now, what is this salary for men and women who spend their lives studying and teaching? Why, it is barely sufficient to keep body and soul together, and when we remember that out of this paltry salary school rents have frequently to be paid, residences provided, provision for old age made, and the teacher's family to be supported, it is scarcely credible that such a state of affairs exists. When we look at the salaries of the English and Scotch teachers we find that the average salaries of male teachers in England is £103 10s. 10d.; of female teachers, £62 9s. 11d.; and in Scotland the male teachers receive £110 7s. 10d., and the female teachers £58 14s. 4d. Now, the hon. and gallant Member for Longford proposes, undoubtedly, that the condition of the Irish teachers should be improved, but the course which he points out is not likely to accomplish that object. He proposes to extend the system of payments by results—a system which even to the extent it has already gone does not appear very clearly to be beneficial. There are many objections which in the interest of education alone can be urged against payment of teachers by results fees at any time; but the introduction of the system, in 1872, was based upon an unsound principle. I can very well appreciate the argument that, as a stimulus and incentive to greater exertion, payment by results to a limited extent might work well; but in 1872 it was introduced not to improve the quality of education, but merely for the benefit of the teachers and for the purpose of increasing their salaries. The system is also open to the objection that mere cramming and mechanical teaching is resorted to, and no real and lasting effect is produced upon the minds of the pupils. The regulations in force for the advancement of pupils from a lower to a higher class works also very badly, because a teacher is not allowed to present a pupil for examination for results, in one class, more than twice—except in the infant classes—and it very often happens that pupils who attend on only a limited number of days are forced by this plan into classes more advanced than they are fit for, and all chance of a substantial education is destroyed. If the teachers were first given a sufficient salary and then a system of increased payment by results was introduced with the view of stimulating the exertions of teachers to give to their pupils a better quality of education then, I think, such a system would be most satisfactory. I do not propose entering more fully into this question, because the teachers in deference to the wish of their superiors do not ask that the present system shall be altered; and I pass on to consider whether any extension of the results system will be beneficial either to education or to the teachers. The chief defect of the mode adopted of payment by results is that it works very unequally. Those teachers and schools which have least want of assistance obtain by this system the greatest advantage. Schools in populous districts attended by pupils of an higher order of intelligence in localities where voluntary contributions are large, obtain infinitely more advantages by payments for re- sults than in poorer and less prosperous parts of the country. In these latter places, although the work of the teachers is more laborious, although education is afforded under much greater difficulties, and where all the help that can be given by the State is wanted, little or nothing can be earned as fees for results, even in favourably circumstanced schools, so great is the uncertainty connected with this system that a teacher can never say what in reality his income is. To show the great inequality between the payments by results in large and prosperous schools and the smaller and less favoured ones, I will just refer to a few cases taken very much at random out of the Appendix I have before alluded to. The Belfast District Model School earned.£523 2,9. 8d. last year for results; the Victoria Street School, £117 7s. 6d.; Lurgan School, £126 9s.; Coleraine Model, £117 16.9. 3d.; Central Model School, £400 2s. 6d.; Galway Model, £76 2.8.; Sligo Model, £143 3s. 6d. Now 33 per cent of all the schools in Ireland earned less than £10 for results, and of this number a very large proportion earned less than £5. It is perfectly manifest that the hon. and gallant Member for Longford has brought forward this Motion, so far as he seeks to extend the system of payment by results, in the interest of a few most prosperous schools that really want assistance the least. The next objection is the uncertainty in the attendance of pupils over whom the teacher has no control. In many districts in Ireland the children are engaged in manual labour and cannot attend during some parts of the year, although they can be tolerably regular in their attendance at another time. Consequently, the teacher may not be able to present such pupils for examination on the days appointed, and thereby loses the benefit of all his exertions in the education of such pupils. An epidemic may be prevalent about the time of the examination, and probably the greater number of the scholars will not be able to present themselves for examination or possibly will have gone to some neighbouring school. Accidental causes such as sickness, severe weather, or absence of parents, may very frequently cause the absence of pupils just at the time appointed for examination. Again, parents—since the introduction of the results system—refuse in many instances to pay any school-fees, because they say the teachers are doubly paid, first by class salaries and then by results. The teacher cannot insist upon payment, because the neighbouring schools are open freely to the scholars whom he may refuse to receive. The system holds out a very great inducement to poor, unfortunate, underpaid teachers to falsify the attendance book, in order that they may reap the benefit of their exertions in bringing forward pupils that can pass the examination. The Reports of the Inspectors clearly show that, under existing circumstances, this temptation is very great, and it is hard to blame teachers who err in this respect when we consider that in many cases they do so in order to keep starvation from their doors; and the case of a teacher who knows that he can earn a few shillings by altering the attendance list in the case of a pupil—who probably has attended almost the full number of times requisite to entitle him to be examined—can hardly be too leniently judged of. The extension of the system, however, by increasing this temptation is, I think, a sufficient reason why no such extension should be adopted. Teachers of Infant schools suffer very heavily by the system of payment by results, because it is impossible, no matter how much labour is bestowed on the education of infants to bring them up to the required standard in a period less than from two to three years, whilst the fees to be earned are so much smaller than those allowed for grown children. Again, many children are not sent to school until after the age for earning results in the Infant schools, so that they must be taught in a class with the infants gratuitously. Again, great temptation exists for a teacher to neglect the education of pupils who are not regular in their attendance thinking that his time is much more profitably employed in the education of those who will be likely to enable him to earn fees under this system. Again, great uncertainty exists by reason of the different methods adopted by the examiners. One Inspector possesses a happy knack of extracting from a nervous child the knowledge which the pupil really possesses, whereas another may not possess as happy a manner. Thus, a teacher may earn twice as much by the same pupils upon an examination by one Inspector as he could by the same pupils upon an examination by another. The proficiency of all classes of children depends just as much—if not more—on their regular attendance, their aptitude, and application as on the exertions of the teacher. I have already shown that where aid is least wanted, the attendance and aptitude of the scholars is most likely to be found satisfactory, whereas, where aid is most wanted—from causes wholly beyond the control of the teachers—the attendance is irregular, the aptitude below the mark, and all causes combine to lessen the remuneration of the teacher. Under the present system it must always be with the teacher a mere question of money—how much he can earn—rather than the quality of the education which he affords. The trifling amount of results to be earned in the rural and village schools is so small, no matter how great the exertion of the teacher may be, that this system adds little to the paltry salary which he is paid. The Inspectors and other authorities upon this question are not agreed by any means as to the prudence of even continuing the system of payments by results. Many of them are opposed to the principle, others of them think that it has not yet had a fair trial, but few—if any—could be found wholly to endorse the policy of the course now pursued. In conclusion, I will lay before the House a few statistics showing how this system of payment by results has worked in Ireland. For the past year, 6,731 schools were earning results, 561 of which earned less than £5; 1,921 earned under £10 and over £5, and 2,486 earned less than £10, or, in other words, 37 per cent of the schools earned less than £10, when it is remembered that in many of these schools there are two or more teachers employed, it will be clearly manifest that payment by results works the greatest injustice in the case of those requiring assistance the most. On these grounds, therefore, without further elaborating the points to which I have called the attention of the House, I submit that the teachers are justified in resisting any extension of payment by results. The next point to which I would like to bring the attention of the House is as to residences. I may premise by stating to the House that in England nearly 80 per cent of the teachers have free residences, whereas in Ireland 77·7 of the male teachers and 79·9 of the female teachers have to provide and pay rent for the residences. Upon the efficiency of the teachers depends very much the quality of the education given to the youth of the country, and how is it to be expected that an unfortunate man or woman who has travelled, probably in the rain, three, four, or five miles—and oftener a greater distance—to their schools in the morning, can properly or efficiently discharge his or her duty as a teacher. Having remained teaching during the day, most likely without any fire in the schoolroom, for, unfortunately, the only provision made for fuel in most cases is the contribution by some of the children of a few sods of turf, the same unfortunate individual has to return the same distance never having had the opportunity of being able to change or dry his or her wet clothes. In order to show the House that I am not in any way putting an extreme case, I will read the evidence of one of the most experienced of the Head School Inspectors given in his Report to the Commissioners, contained in the Appendix from which I have already quoted—

"The teachers in numerous instances suffer great inconvenience for want of residences near their schools. Many of them are obliged to walk six or more miles daily in the discharge of their duties, and it is evident that this labour, more especially in the ease of females, must exercise a depressing influence on their energies in school."

I think I need not elaborate my arguments on this question further, but content myself by stating the foregoing facts. The remaining point to which I will address myself is the question of pensions. Now, my hon. and gallant Friend has called attention to the Report of the Commissioners, and has brought this question very fully before the House. I press for the granting or securing of pensions to National teachers as much—if not more—in the interests of education itself as for the benefit of the teachers. It is of the utmost importance that the very best class of instructor's for the youth of the country should be obtained. The Civil Service appointments and other pursuits where pensions are granted attract at present the most suitable and proper persons. If the position of the National teacher were so improved that young men of ability would feel certain that the workhouse and a pauper's grave could not possibly be the conclusion of a life spent in the faithful discharge of onerous duties, there would be no difficulty in having the most competent and efficient teachers that could possibly be desired under such circumstances. A teacher who had once gone through a course of training would remain in the service instead of at present after a very short period either migrating or adopting another following. The gratuity given by the Board in cases approved of by the Treasury is sufficient to maintain the superannuated teacher for a year or two at the most, after which he must trust himself and his family to the care of the union and become a burden to the rates. Another and most injurious effect of the present system is to retain as teachers persons aged and infirm who have long ago ceased to be efficient as teachers. Patrons and managers of schools cannot possibly turn adrift these old and incapacitated teachers, because they know the misery that such dismissal must necessarily cause. If pensions were secured the services of all these teachers would forthwith be dispensed with. Young and efficient persons would immediately be found who would supply their places, and we should have a class of teachers far in a way superior to those who at present have charge and control over the education of the country. I regret to say that the number of cases I could allude to is so numerous that it would weary the House if I went into detail. Suffice it to say it has been shown that there were on the night when the last Census was taken 111 National teachers in workhouses, all of them infirm and aged or otherwise incapacitated. I admit that there is a difficulty in this question about pensions because National teachers are not Civil servants; but I have already proved that it is the duty of the "State to provide sufficient inducement to attract a supply of efficient teachers. I have shown how the State interferes directly in the payment of the teachers, and above all, I have called attention to the fact that gratuities cannot be given by the Board without the express sanction of the Treasury. To meet the objection that the National teachers of Ireland are not Civil servants, I would suggest to the Government to bring forward such a scheme as is proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend by which deferred annui- ties can be obtained, the Government contributing a very substantial sum towards such purchase leaving it to the teachers to supply the remainder; but before any system of this kind can be adopted the remuneration of the teachers must be so increased as to enable them to maintain themselves and their families in comfort and decency before they think of providing a fund for the purpose of provision for old age. I have now shortly alluded to the points, which in my opinion demonstrate that my hon. and gallant Friend—in the proposal which he has to-night made to the House as to the extension of the system of payment by results—is entirely mistaken. I know there is not in this House a man more sincere in his opinions and more honest in his convictions than the hon. and gallant Member for Longford; but I feel convinced that on the present occasion he represents a very small number of the patrons of schools who have been devouring the lion's share of the money given by the State as remuneration to teachers by payment for results. I appeal to this House in the interest of education, in the name of the Irish people on the part of the children of Ireland, not to allow this system of payment by results to be extended. I implore of the Government on every ground that can or ought to influence a statesman or a Minister at once so to improve the position of the National teachers that education in Ireland can be carried on effectively. I beg of the Chief Secretary to take into his consideration the case of the National school teachers of Ireland; all they ask for is a mere competence; they desire nothing further than to have the causes which have led to their present grievances and complaints removed; they wish to settle down to their duties, to do the best they can faithfully and honestly to carry out the great and important work entrusted to them; they wish to have their minds freed from anxiety and to devote themselves cheerfully to the duties which they are called upon to discharge. I know that if there is gratitude in human hearts, the National teachers of all others will be the most ready to acknowledge the benefits which will be conferred upon them by a favourable consideration of their case by the Government and this House. I repeat all they seek for is to have third-class salaries increased to £1 per week, £1 10s. for second-class, and £2 for first-class. This question cannot be considered as in any way a party or a political one. The system is a State one, nothing more is asked than bare and simple justice, and I think that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland has now an opportunity of showing to the country that the promises which he made last Session he is willing to fulfil, and I can assure him that the conciliation of such a large body of men in Ireland who have entrusted to them the education of the rising generation, will, in no small way, assist in impressing upon the Irish people the desirability of cordial union with this country. I am proud to say that I believe the people of Ireland desire nothing better than the most friendly and close intimacy with the people of this country provided you will only govern us as you would govern yourselves, and I believe this feeling will be much assisted if the Government will prove to the teachers of Ireland that they are ready and anxious to do for them what has already been done for the teachers of Great Britain. If at a later period of the evening the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend shall be assented to, I shall move the Amendment to his Resolution of which I have given Notice—namely, to leave out all the words after "teachers efficiently trained" to the end of the Amendment, in order to add the words—

"By providing free residences, by continuing the present system of payment by results, by increasing the class salaries of all teachers, and by securing to teachers pensions."

I have often been surprised that no Irish Member up to the present time has called attention to the very important Report of the Royal Commission on Primary Education in Ireland. It is a Report replete with interest, and remarkable for the recommendations which it contains. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) has done good service by drawing attention to it. His Resolution contains some proposed improvements of the present administration of Irish schools which all friends of education will cordially consent to endorse; but it contains other pledges which I hope this House will be slow to give. The Resolution begins by admitting the want of efficiency in the present mode of conducting National education in Ire- land. Now, on this and on another point relating to Irish education, there are two popular delusions which have sunk so deeply into the convictions of the English people that it is difficult to root them out. The first is, that Irish education is undenominational; the second is, that the results of the Irish system are such as justify pride on both sides this House. Never were delusions more complete. No less than 99¾ per cent of Irish National Schools are managed denominationally, and only ¼ per cent are under mixed management. The present Irish Schools are simply denominational schools with a time-table Conscience Clause. Not only are they managed by separate sects, but their actual management is mainly clerical. In fact 70 per cent of them are managed by priests of the several persuasions, and only 30 per cent are under lay management, but of the Roman Catholic Schools 85 per cent are under clerical patrons. Therefore, the present national system is entirely denominational, and the denominations must have the credit or the discredit of their efficiency or failure. Then we come to the second delusion of the English people, that the results of the system are creditable to the wisdom of Parliament, and are sufficient to justify our own congratulations. This delusion ought to be dissipated by the astonishing revelations of this Commission. In the first place, we find that the children on the rolls are only nominally scholars, for the Commissioners tell us that only 36 per cent of them attend school regularly, and that 64 per cent are conspicuous by their absence. In other words, the school truancy is three times greater than it was in England before the introduction of compulsion. I know of nothing in the history of education of any civilized country in modern times which is so lamentable. No school system could be efficient under such conditions, and, therefore, we ought not to be startled at the recorded results of the system. The Commissioners tell us that no less than 45 per cent of the children at school are in the first book, or in the one immediately above the ABC. To understand how low the level is, let me compare these results with those in Great Britain in 1869, before the new Act gave a stimulus to education. In Great Britain, of all the children on the roll, 42 per cent passed in reading; in Ireland, only 18 per cent. In Great Britain, 40 per cent passed in writing; in Ireland 8 per cent. In Great Britain, 36 per cent passed in arithmetic; in Ireland, the Commissioners declined to give us an estimate. A question naturally occurs to all our minds. If the children of Ireland have such low education, in what condition are the men and women of Ireland? The late Census gives us some particulars on this head. It classes as literates all who can either read or write, not those who can do both, and it classes as illiterates those who can do neither. I have not yet seen the summary tables for Ulster and Connaught, but I have in my possession those for Leinster and Munster, and the results are these, taking the nearest decimals. In the Province of Leinster 30½ per cent of the Roman Catholics, 7½ per cent of the Episcopalians, and 5 per cent of the Presbyterians can neither read nor write. In the Province of Munster it is still worse, for 41½ per cent of the Roman Catholics, 7¾ per cent of the Episcopalians, and 4⅓ per cent of the Presbyterians can neither read nor write. Only the Returns of four counties in Connaught have reached me, and they give still more startling results. Leitrim has 33 per cent; Roscommon, 40 per cent; Galway, 56 per cent; and Mayo, 57 per cent of the people above five years of age unable either to read or write. In Ulster the smallest percentage of illiteration is in Antrim, where it is 15 per cent; the largest in Donegal, where it is 42 per cent. Does the House realize these astounding facts? We are spending £500,000 annually for education in Ireland, and the system has been in operation for a generation, and these figures show what a melancholy outcome there is for our efforts and expenditure. The administration of the system is an educational failure. So far, I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend. His first condition for improving the system is to train the teachers, to improve their dwellings and the schools, and to give them bettor remuneration. Further on in the Resolution, he indicates that local management and local rating should be brought in aid of these requirements. I know my hon. and gallant Friend to be a zealous educationist, and I think he includes much that is desirable in these comprehensive suggestions. He has shown the House clearly that the teachers are in- sufficiently trained. In fact, so loosely have the Commissioners of Irish Education held the reins of the system, that they empower the manager of a school to appoint any man or woman he pleases to the office of teacher, whether he is trained or untrained, whether he is lettered or ignorant. The Inspector after the appointment would draw attention to any glaring incompetency, but previous to it he has no power. Teachers are then classified by the Inspectors, and about one-half of the principal teachers are in the third class, one so low and unsatisfactory that the Commissioners recommend that it should be raised. Even the teachers trained in the model schools and in the central Dublin training school have no training comparable to teachers in this country. With us, they must be five years as pupil-teachers, and then must have two years in training colleges. In Ireland a residence of six months is considered sufficient training for a teacher, even without the preparatory preparation of pupil-teachership. My hon. and gallant Friend is therefore quite justified in asking this House to look more carefully to the training of teachers in Ireland, for no principle in education is more firmly established than this—that the efficiency of the school depends upon the efficiency of the teachers. My hon. and gallant Friend points to their low salaries, and proposes that they should be raised; but happily he does not suggest that the State should bear all the burden. At present the teacher is the servant of the clerical manager of the school. The manager appoints and dismisses him, but the State furnishes five-sixths of his pay. The education of an Irish child when the Commission reported cost 19s. per annum, of which the child pays in fees 2s. 7d., the locality in subscription only 9d., while the State pays 15s. 8d. My hon. and gallant Friend is not unreasonable enough to ask this House that the State should pay more, when it is the local manager who assumes all control of the teachers, whom, however, he refuses to pay, and whom he discourages from being trained and made efficient in the Government training schools. The position of teachers in Ireland is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Their pay seldom reaches, and is generally inferior to, the wages of an artizan, and their tenure of office is precarious. It is the universal experience of nations that, however vigorous may be the central administration, however active the local management, the success and civilizing power of schools wholly depend on the character, position, and attainments of the teachers. If the civilization of Ireland is to be increased by education, the position of its schoolmasters must be raised, so that they may be removed from the class of justified grumblers, and be made firm and staunch allies of the State. But that cannot be done by the State alone. The localities must take part in the local government and local expenditure on education. If Ireland contributed like England by local subscriptions, even before rating was established in 1870, she ought to subscribe for her schools £110,000 annually, If you take away £4,000 of endowments, she only now gives £10,000 by local contributions. This, in reality, is a significant and startling fact. The poorer classes in Ireland are an example to us in their independence of public aid, for pauperism among them is much less than in England; but the middle and upper classes show them a bad example in the matter of education. Instead of contributing, as men of property and position do in Great Britain, to the education of the poor, the Imperial purse is always looked upon as the source of expenditure. Until Irish districts rate themselves, or are rated by Parliament, for the support of education, it is in vain for us to expect improvement either in the condition of the teachers or of the taught. When you have rate-aided schools, then will arise interest in local management and justification for local control. At present the educational failure of the existing system shows that there is neither. I therefore cordially join with the hon. and gallant Mover of the Resolution in accepting local rating and local management as indispensable conditions for improvement. I will not follow him into the details of his application, though I quite agree with him that the conditions of the school-houses and of the dwellings of the teachers require great improvement. But how to improve them, either by local or Imperial aid, is a matter of great difficulty. By a letter of the Propaganda, of the 14th January, 1841, the Sacred Congregation advised that the property of school-houses should be vested in the Bishops or parish priest, and in consequence of that policy, we find that three-fourths of all the schools are non-vested, or constitute property not legally destined for education. The application to them of rates would not be desired by the priests, or would not be permitted by the ratepayers. There are, therefore, serious difficulties in the way of the application of the good principles laid clown in this Resolution. Nevertheless, the position of the teachers in regard to these non-vested schools is intolerable. Notwithstanding their miserable salaries, the Commissioners tell us that the poor teachers have to make the repairs of one-third, or exactly 33½ per cent of the non-vested schools, and that their miserable salaries are further burdened in nearly all cases—exactly in 95 per cent of the non-vested schools—with the supply of the maps and educational appliances. My hon. and gallant Friend is more than justified in asking for a genuine local, and not merely clerical, management, and for local rating to remedy these crying evils, however formidable may be the difficulties in the application of his remedies. He recommends nothing new. In the early days of the system, Dr. Doyle recommended mixed committees of management with a layman for treasurer: but under the loose administration of the Irish Board the management has become chiefly clerical. So far, I have been able to agree with the Mover of the Resolution in his diagnosis of the maladies of the Irish educational system, and of his measures for its cure. But now I separate from him. I see too clearly the evils which have arisen from non-vested schools to agree with him that he will improve the system by introducing non-vested training colleges. This is not a question in which one denomination is involved. All denominations in Ireland are equally at fault in the failure of the present system. The Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Roman Catholics, have all, at one time or another, opposed mixed education in the Government training schools. They have had their own way, with the most thorough completeness both as to the schools and as to the schoolmasters, and the system has proved a gigantic failure. The teachers are untrained, the scholars are uneducated, and the growing population of Ireland are in a state of almost incredible ignorance. ["No, No!"] Well, I have given you facts from public documents which unhappily prove each of these assertions. And yet we are asked to intensify the denominationalism which has been tried and been found wanting. My hon. and gallant Friend wishes denominational training schools. Can he give us securities that the various denominations would take a sufficiently high estimate either of what the teachers should know, or what the scholars should be taught? The Roman Catholic denomination is much the most extensive in Ireland; but I find nothing in the evidence of the Bishops examined before the Commissioners in proof of their desire for a high training of teachers. Take Cardinal Cullen's evidence as an example. He neither wants high training for a teacher nor high education for a scholar. His Eminence says, in speaking of teachers—

"I would not require certificates. Those who pass the best examination and get diplomas most readily are oftentimes the very worst teachers. They have their thoughts fixed on situations in which they could get on in the world."

That discontent with their present condition is just the thing that I should like to foster. Of course, this idea of non-certificated teachers is entirely opposed to our notion of English denominational training schools, but I find Bishop after Bishop pointing out the evils of over-training on such grounds as that trained teachers are less submissive to their pastors. And now as to the taught. Cardinal Cullen's idea of teaching is summed up in these words. He says that it should be limited to the three R's, and to the history of the Scriptures and of the Church.

"Too high an education will make flu; poor oftentimes discontented, and will unsuit them from following the plough, or for using the spade, or for hammering iron, or building walls."

Well, when I find a dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church with such power over its counsels, cherishing ideas of education which we have long ago abandoned as antiquated in this country, I am not disposed to yield the Government training system, inferior as it still is, for a denominational system which is likely to be much worse. The Cardinal tells us, in his evidence, that the Roman Catholic Church will not be satisfied until it has training schools, such as convents and houses belonging to Religious Orders, for training teachers. In answer to that view, let me quote the opinion of one of the Commissioners, Sir Robert Kane, a man of eminence, and himself a Roman Catholic. He says—

"I consider it to be the fact that in every country where such a course has been adopted, it has resulted in the social decay and political debasement of the people."

If this were not true, it ought to have been disproved in Ireland, for there you have schools almost wholly under clerical management, resulting in a failure the most complete. If you are to supplement this system by a training of teachers under Religious Orders, the subordination of secular to religious teaching would be still greater. As Bishop Cloyne told the Commission, the Church ought to have control of every part of the education in the school except the multiplication table. This is the Middle-Age maxim revived—"Ad cum qui regit Christianam rempublicam scholarum regimen pertinere." This clerical management of schools, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, has had a trial of more than a generation, and we are now called upon to view the woeful results of the system. In England and Scotland the State has lately assumed its own sovereign functions in regard to education, and will soon, by compulsory education, far distance Ireland, which began a national system 35 years before England. The chief cause of the difference is, that in Great Britain lay management has been joined to the labours of the clergy, while in Ireland clerical managers have thought themselves capable of undertaking a work which they have failed to perform. For that result all denominations are responsible. When my hon. and gallant Friend points to the analogy of English training schools with those which he demands, there is no doubt some similarity, but also great dissimilarity in the comparison. There are Catholic training schools in England admirably conducted, and there are Catholic day schools quite as efficient as any in the country. But this result has been achieved, because they have had the same advantages as the other schools of the country. They have been under an efficient administration, responsible to Parliament, and like other schools have only been aided when they did their work well. But in Ireland there is no real Ministerial responsibility for education, and the administration of the Commissioners has been so weak that they yield everything to clerical influence, and preserve no securities for success. They have allowed the school buildings to slip away from them, and while they continue to pay the teacher wholly, they allow the clerical managers to be his master without contributing to his wages. There is no lay local management as in England, and no local contributions worth taking into account, either by subscription or rates. What then is possible? First of all, there should be efficient Ministerial responsibility for our annually increasing Imperial expenditure, now more than £500,000. I urged that upon the House last year in a Motion upon a Minister of Education. But even without such a Minister, the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland should be subordinated to the Education Department, as the Scotch National Board is at the present time. The Irish system has failed, not from any want of boldness or sagacity in Lord Derby's original conception of it, but because the Commissioners have not carried it out. He always contemplated that local government should manage the schools, and mainly pay the teachers. My hon. and gallant Friend by the words of his Resolution simply comes back to the original system. Do as we do in Great Britain. Encourage local effort, but only in proportion as it is put forth. Pay with Imperial money only for efficient schools producing results useful to the country, and refuse to support those schools which do not. Surely he who pays the fiddler ought to name the tune. Then, when money is paid for efficiency only, you soon will find teachers trained in order to win the grants. How they are trained is a matter of secondary importance, if the State pays, as it does in England, only for the secular results of actual teaching. Our system both in Catholic and Protestant training schools is to pay nothing for the teachers while in training, but to credit the school with £75, if after two years' work in a regular school he proves his efficiency and obtains his certificate. The training college is inspected, and its teaching appliances are kept up to the mark, as a means to an end, but that end is tested by a two years' working of secular teaching in schools unconnected with the training college. Now, I do not deny that there are no small arguments in favour of doing in Ireland what we do in England and Scotland, if we could trust the Administration to carry on the work in the same way and bring it up to the same standard. But that is not the recommendation of the Royal Commission, nor is it the meaning of my hon. and gallant Friend when he asks the House to pledge itself to "non-vested training schools." In both cases, the actual meaning is to hand over the training of teachers to the Religious Orders. That is a system utterly incompatible with a free and vigorous national life. Besides that, there is ample experience in Ireland on the subject. Even now the Christian Brothers and nuns in Ireland train teachers, and the Commissioners tell us that their schools are in no respect better than the other inferior schools of Ireland. The hon. and gallant Mover of the Resolution relied much on Mr. Fortescue's celebrated letter of June 1866, and seemed to think that the Liberal party were bound by its recommendations. I for one refuse to be so. It was written at a time when the signal failure of Irish educational administration was unknown. Education in Ireland is an instance of Home Rule, pure and unmixed, except that it is Home Rule supported by Imperial taxation. But it has entirely failed. Not until the educational administration is brought under Imperial control, and not until the educational standards of Ireland are made comparable to those of Great Britain, could you be justified in largely increasing expenditure, even were it not to be placed under the control of the clergy. The time has arrived when, in making new arrangements for education, national interests and not denominational interests must be consulted. At present there is a mixed system of training which with proper development—for it is now only equal to one-half the annual supply—might be made equal to the necessities of Irish teachers. As long as the Commissioners cede everything to the priests and receive nothing in return, the Catholic Church will oppose this mixed system. But if you follow the practice in Great Britain and refuse to pay for schools, unless they are efficient, the clerical managers will soon learn that the only means of winning money is to train the teachers. Do not be alarmed at the prospect of a conflict with the Catholic Church in Ireland. No doubt, the priests are very powerful when they are in unison with the feelings of the people. But the former know very well that the Irish wish good education, and if they oppose them in their wish, the priests will lose influence, and the people will gain freedom. Much as I wish to see local rating and local management for schools introduced into Ireland, I would not grudge to it a much larger amount of Imperial taxation than Great Britain receives in proportion to the population. But then, the enlargment and extension of education in Ireland should have a national, and not a sectarian object. It cannot be expected that a Parliament which has disestablished one Church in Ireland, shall endow other Churches through their schools. A fair trial has been given to clerical management in Ireland, and it has signally failed to produce useful results. The time has come for superseding clerical management by local government under a firm Imperial administration. The plan of low education has been tried in Ireland, and the people remain uneducated and dissatisfied. Other countries, notably Switzerland, Holland, Germany, and in part Scotland, have tried to give their people a higher education with the most happy results. They have found the education suitable for the demands of labour in all parts of the world, and those who remain at home and those who emigrate have prospered. In the model schools of Ireland, which my hon. and gallant Friend would like to convert into denominational schools, there is the material and the resources for a higher education of the people. The Irish people are remarkable for their natural intelligence, acuteness, and love of knowledge. If these qualities are not developed by the system of education now prevalent, it is the system and not the people who are at fault. You started the national system under fair auspices, for you had a people with a traditional love of knowledge. They held schools under the hedges. But all this desire seems to have been stilled by our existing low education, otherwise, how could there be whole Irish counties with 50 per cent of a population unable to read or write. The scope of education ought not to be limited to the production of mere hodmen and rough labourers, but should suffice to raise an intelligent people above their present condition. It is not the interest of the nation that Ireland should continue to have a poor, half-educated, and discontented peasantry; but it is the interest of the nation, however great may be the Imperial as well as local expenditure, for such a result, that the people of Ireland should have their high natural faculties so cultured, as to enable them to go forth into the industrial battles of life with that armour of self-reliance and educated intelligence which will enable them to fight manfully wherever they are placed, and to reap the fruits of conquest. If Irish Members desire the alliance of English and Scotch Members on both sides of the House in the promotion of this great result, they will find zeal for the work equal to their own, and no parsimony in the endeavour to attain it. But surely it is natural when Parliament realizes the terrible deficiencies of education in Ireland, as displayed in the Report of the Commissioners, that it should require the education to be conducted in a national spirit, with no preference for the interests of Churches, though with perfect protection for the rights of conscience, in the single desire that the people should enjoy the advantages of a really sound and useful education, which hitherto they have not received.

believed that one of the reasons why education had not made more progress in Ireland was the fact of the parents there not being compelled to contribute towards the payment of the schoolmaster. A thing given for nothing was not so highly valued as one that had to be paid for. The present pay of the teachers in Ireland was miserable—not equal to the average wages of an agricultural labourer. The residence of the teacher, too, where he had one, was usually a wretched place. Under those circumstances, it was not to be wondered at that there was not a high quality of education there, and that the best men did not come forward as teachers. He hold that where districts refused to contribute voluntarily towards providing for education, a rate should be imposed upon those districts for the desired purpose. If Her Majesty's Government would bring forward a measure requiring the parents to pay a minimum sum, provided they were able to do so, and enabling those who were not able to get a certificate freeing them from the payment, he believed that the education of the country would be greatly benefited. He also thought that a real Commission should be appointed, presided over by a Minister of Education, to take the place of the present amateur Commission.

said, they appeared quite agreed that the schoolmaster was underpaid in Ireland. The necessaries of life were very nearly the same in cost in the Three Kingdoms, and yet, while the remuneration was £103 in England, and £110 in Scotland, it was only £56 in Ireland. There was as much, if not more, of difference with regard to the teacher's residence. With regard to payment by results, he thought the present payment was stimulus enough; for he feared if it were increased, it would in some cases induce parents to decline paying so much in school fees, so that for every shilling paid by results, the parents would probably deduct 6d. from the school fees. He hoped the Government would do their best to utilize all existing means of educating the people, and not alienate the clergy of the different denominations. As to a rate, they ought to hesitate before putting new burdens on the farmers. In England the county rates were paid equally, in the absence of any special contract, by landlord and tenant. In Ireland they were borne solely by the tenant. His proposal was, that the money should come out of the Imperial funds. To that it would perhaps be objected that the Government already contributed more largely to Ireland than to England for educational purposes. He admitted that there was a slight difference; but the contribution for education was the only one that England did for Ireland. The Government paid £20,000,000 for the Army and Navy in England; but only £1,500,000 for a similar purpose in Ireland; and the same rule was followed with regard to other institutions, excepting the Constabulary and education, in the latter of which, the figures were, as near as he could make out, 1s. 6½d. in England per child, and 1s. 10½d. in Ireland. For the Constabulary Ireland was not thankful; but let the Government give more for education and they might perhaps here- after have to give less for the Constabulary, as the necessity for maintaining a large force would soon disappear. That would make Ireland more thankful.

said, the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) about Home Rule in connection with the subject was not intelligible, because the Board of Education in Ireland was under the direct control of the Minister of Education in England, and the Board of Education in Ireland was appointed by the English Minister. It was composed, no doubt, of Irish gentlemen, but they were selected to suit the purpose of ruling Ireland by England. The Irish system of education was instituted, as everyone knew, to denationalize the population. The stepping in of the Government between the free professors of education in Ireland and the people accounted for the inability of a very large proportion of the people in some counties to read and write. He remembered that during the Repeal agitation, when a parcel containing a new edition of some of the books issued by the Board of Education was received at a school on his own property, he had the curiosity to see what changes were in the new edition. What the changes were the following alteration would illustrate. There had been in one of the reading books lines of Sir Walter Scott beginning—

"Breathes there a man with soul so dead

Who never to himself hath said

This is my own, my native land?"

Those lines were cut out, and in place of them was a paper of a very different kind indeed—not verse, nor anything of a poetic character, but a paper entitled, "Easy Lessons on Money Matters by Dr. Whately," who was then and for many years afterwards Archbishop of Dublin and manager of English interests in Ireland. After long opposition by Presbyterian, by Anglican, and by Catholic clergy, the system was established, and the clergy of the various Churches in Ireland had now adopted it. It was therefore national in its extension over the country, and as it was established by the State and accepted by the population, the practical course to be taken was to appoint as teachers such men only as were properly qualified by moral character and by the attainments requisite for teaching, and to pay them sufficient salaries. As to the principle of results, he would desire to eliminate it altogether, because he thought it was pernicious. He altogether objected to the imposition of new local rates for the support of a system which was only a part of the system of English rule in Ireland. If rates were to be paid for education, then education ought to be exclusively under the control of those who paid the rates. He would certainly vote against the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Longford, and support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Kildare.

said, that when the hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) gave Notice of his Motion he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not anticipate that the debate would travel over such a wide extent. He did not intend to enter upon the general question of National Education in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair), in a very able speech, had expressed his views upon the general question. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) confessed it rather surprised him that, considering the importance which the right hon. Gentleman very justly attached to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1868, it was not until the present year that he thought it necessary to call attention to the subject. No one who looked at that Report fairly could under-estimate the difficulties of the question. The right hon. Gentleman, in the first part of his speech, appeared to be anxious to sweep away the existing system. He objected to the National Board of Education, and to the management of schools by clerical managers. But he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) confessed he was glad to hear the comparatively modest requirements with which the right hon. Gentleman concluded. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, that if he could be satisfied that local aid was obtained as it ought to be in Ireland for national education—if he could be satisfied that the money granted by that House was properly administered, and adequate results were obtained from it, he would give his support to the present system. Well, what was the actual state of things? We found in existence a system which had gradually made its way until it had become the national system of education in Ireland, and it would be unwise at that time of day to attempt to abolish or radically change it in order to substitute something entirely now. In his judgment it would be far wiser to amend it with a view to increased efficiency, and it was in this spirit that he should approach the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford. There were two principal portions into which that Motion might be divided. The first, respecting the establishment of training schools, was not of a strictly financial character; whereas the payment of teachers and providing residences for them were more closely connected with finance. The hon. and gallant Member spoke of the comparatively small number of trained teachers in Ireland as compared with untrained teachers. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) believed the statistics showed there were 3,842 trained teachers as against 6,118 who were untrained. But while admitting the gravity of the evil, he must call attention to certain facts, to which sufficient importance had not been attached. Undoubtedly those who had not undergone any regular training were as few in number as had been stated, but the mere figures hardly convoyed an accurate idea of the qualifications of the teachers employed in the Irish National Schools. There were no fewer than 4,000 paid monitors at the present time in the best ordinary schools, and of these from 350 to 400 rose annually from the monitorial staff to the position of teachers. Moreover, 90 or 100 teachers were furnished every year from the pupil-teachers and monitors in the model schools; and about 300 candidates for the same position came yearly from the more advanced pupils of the National Schools. On the whole, he believed that 70 per cent of the recruits to the National School teachers came from monitorial training of one kind or another, and were examined and classified before appointment as teachers: it would therefore be unfair not to admit that they possessed considerable qualifications for their position. The small number of teachers who had been trained in normal schools was not due to a deficiency of those institutions, for during last year there was sent out from the normal school in Dublin a very much smaller number of teachers than there was actually accommodation for. That establishment could hold 300 students, but for several years had received no more than 250 annually; and in 1873, only 207 were trained there. The want of trained teachers was mainly due to the circumstance that the system adopted at that school was not approved by the Roman Catholic Prelates. It was, however, part of the system of United Education, whereas all the proposals made to obviate the difficulty suggested the establishment of a new kind of training colleges, of a more or less denominational character; though it was only right to say that the proposals recently made on this subject by the National Education Commissioners were not admitted to be of this nature by those who supported them. The question then was, how far it was possible to combine denominational training colleges with the present system of national education in Ireland, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh had asserted to be denominational. If the right hon. Gentleman had referred to any of the numerous discussions on the subject, he would have found himself contradicted not only by Episcopalians and Presbyterians, but also by Roman Catholics. The present system was supported by Episcopalians and Presbyterians as undenominational, and they opposed any changes in a denominational direction; while Roman Catholics often objected to it as not sufficiently denominational. The English and Irish systems were essentially different, for Parliament had founded the educational system in Ireland on a united basis, while in England it had merely aided the different religious bodies, and mainly the Church of England, in their voluntary efforts to educate the people; and it was no argument to say that because there were denominational training colleges under one system in this country, they ought to be established under quite another system in Ireland. But there was one suggestion made by the National Board of Education on this subject which was based upon another footing; in fact, it was to a certain extent based upon their original practice. Before the date at which the buildings in Marlborough Street were thoroughly completed it was the practice to allow the students training together in the normal schools to board and lodge out where they chose, receiving a certain allowance to cover their expenses, and that was a system which the National Board of Education had, by a majority of 14 to 2, recommended for adoption again at the present time. But when he looked at that proposal and asked himself how far it would meet the views of the hon. and gallant Member, he was compelled to say there would be serious doubt on that subject, because in the evidence given before the Royal Commission, he found that Cardinal Cullen, on the part of the Roman Catholics, objected to a similar proposal, because he did not consider it a solution of the question. He was bound to say that he was not able that evening to recommend to the House any proposal for the establishment of fresh training colleges. He might, however, state that if the Roman Catholic Bishops could be persuaded again to adopt the course they followed in former years, and to allow those over whom they had influence to receive training in the normal schools, he believed the real difficulty of producing a sufficient supply of trained teachers would be practically settled. But this subject was intimately connected with the amount of payment which the teachers received, for it was a waste of money and time training teachers at the expense of the State, if the emoluments they could obtain were not sufficient to induce them to remain in the service. It therefore seemed to him that the real solution of the question might be found in making the position of the teachers better and more desirable. That brought him to the financial portion of the Motion before the House. It was admitted by himself and by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, when the question was discussed last Session, that the position of the teachers was unsatisfactory, and that it would be the duty of the Government to propose to the House some scheme to improve it. It would shortly be his duty to lay such a scheme before the House. The point of difference between the hon. Member for Kildare and the hon. and gallant Member for Longford seemed mainly to be whether the improvement in the emoluments of the teachers should be made in addition to the class salary, or by way of additional payment for results. On this he would say that he thought very strong arguments had been adduced by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) on his side of the question. In spite of all that could be said in favour of payment for results, and the improvement it effected in education, we must not forget that in a country like Ireland, with so scattered a population and such small schools, payment by results would not always meet the difficulties of the case; and if teachers were left to run the risk of an epidemic, wet weather, of hostility from parents or from those who influenced parents, they might, through no fault of their own, be deprived of no small part of the income you wished them to earn. From the statement of the National Board of Education, it appeared that the grant for payment for results which had continued for three years had been received in very different proportions by the first and second class as distinguished from the third class. Very generally it was the case that the teacher of the smaller school would have a smaller salary; and, under those circumstances, it would hardly be a proper settlement of the question if no addition were made to the lower class salaries of the teachers; and therefore he proposed to add a certain percentage to those salaries. Without going into the statements of the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh respecting the low standard of education in the Irish schools, he feared that it must be admitted that there was more truth in those statements than they could desire; but matters, especially with regard to the regularity of the attendance of children, were progressively improving, and he had no doubt that, subject to certain alterations in administration, the present system was capable of doing all the good required from it. He believed, however, that there was an unnecessary number of small schools, between 1,100 and 1,200 having an average attendance of less than 30 scholars. He could not help thinking that, by amalgamation or otherwise, this number might be reduced to the extent at least of one-fourth. Teachers also ought to be relieved from the cost of repairing schools or school residences. He thought it was possible, and he was sure it was desirable, that more fees should be exacted from the parents of children, if only for their own sake—that they should better appreciate the benefits of education. It must not be forgotten, however, that in many parts of Ireland these parents had paid more towards education than similar classes in England, because their richer neighbours, he feared, had sometimes not contributed as much towards the erection or maintenance of schools as the same class of persons in England. The question of pensions was by no means an easy one. He thought the only mode in which they could well be given was on the principle of deferred annuities recommended by the hon. and gallant Member for Longford. The Treasury might, perhaps, contribute a certain proportion of the annual payment required to provide a life annuity, beginning at a certain age; but any such proposals would require a large expenditure on the part of the Treasury, at any rate when the plan first came into operation, and therefore he could only say that a scheme for this purpose had already received careful consideration, and that he was in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the possibility of carrying it into effect. Last Session he referred to the question of residences, and the Correspondence which had been laid on the Table showed that it was intended this year to propose a Vote not exceeding £5,000 towards the erection of residences in the case of vested schools. He was not without a sanguine hope that something might be done also in the case of residences for non-vested schools. This object, however, could not be accomplished by a grant for the erection of such residences, though it might possibly be done by an alteration in the Land Improvement and Glebe Loans Act, under which those who were anxious to borrow money for the purpose might borrow it from the Board of Works, the residences being erected subject to the supervision of the Board of Works, and a certain proportion of the annual repayment of the loan being allowed to the borrower by the National Board of Education so long as the residences were bonâ fide devoted to the use of schoolteachers. As to all the proposals he had sketched out, it should be understood that none of them, excepting the grants towards the erection of residences for vested schools, could be considered as finally decided on by the Government. In dealing with all of them, the difficult question arose how far the additional expenses—indeed, all the expenses—for Irish education should come upon the Imperial Exchequer. There was very great force in the argument of the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh upon the point. It had given him great pleasure that evening to hear it admitted by Irish Representatives that it was right and fair that some local contributions should be levied in Ireland towards the education of the people. Three years ago his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) proposed an increase in the national grant for Irish education, which was then estimated at £104,000 a-year, for the purpose of annual payments for results. That grant had continued for three years, and it had increased in the last year, he was happy to say, because it had been well expended, to £120,000. The Government, however, were now bound, not only by the terms of the letter in which his noble Friend announced this proposal to the National Board of Education, but also by the necessities of the case, to re-consider the whole question. The grant of £120,000 a-year, then, must be looked upon as ending at the close of the present financial year; and, in making fresh arrangements, the Government must deal with the whole question de novo. He had said that he thought it necessary to increase in certain proportions the class salaries of the teachers. That object might be attained by devoting half of the £120,000 towards such increase, allowing the other half to remain in the shape of a certain grant for results. And, in addition to this, on condition that, say, £60,000 a-year was locally raised by the levy of a rate which the Guardians of every Union should be authorized to raise, £60,000 to meet that levy would then be granted from the Treasury as a further payment for results. In fact, subject to certain limitations, the Guardians of the Union would be authorized to tax themselves towards the proper payment of the teachers of the National Schools in their Unions; and upon doing so they would receive a proportionate amount from the Treasury in addition to what was already given. That was a proposal which, when put into shape, might com- mend itself, he hoped, to the House. It seemed to him that it would initiate in Ireland a due provision from local rates for the purpose of national education. It was impossible to adopt the same system in Ireland, which had been laid down in Scotland and England. There were no sufficient materials in Ireland for the formation of school boards, and he believed that if you wished to obtain a local contribution in the shape of a rate, you could only do so upon the basis of the poor rate and through the Board of Guardians. How could we at once, when people had been long taught, as it were, to lean entirely upon the crutches of Imperial grants, turn round and say—"We require a compulsory rate for the purpose of national education?" But by some such proposal as he had sketched out, we might initiate contributions from the localities towards that in which they themselves ought to be most interested. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Longford, and also the hon. Member for Kildare, would be content with the discussion, and be satisfied to leave the matter a little longer in the hands of the Government. He had heard with very great gratification much that had fallen from hon. Members from Ireland in this debate. It was clear to him they appreciated the fact, which must be patent to everyone, that whatever might be said of education in Ireland, it was at any rate true that the present system had, from small beginnings, and in spite of great struggles, at length come to this—it educated, at least to a certain extent, nearly 1,000,000 of children in Ireland. Bearing this in mind, he did not think it wise to propose any sweeping change. He would wish rather to deal with it in the way of preservation and reformation, and to restore it, where necessary, in accordance with its main principles, as a system of united secular and separate religious instruction.

said, he was glad to hear that teachers would be improved in status and that they would have residences provided for them; and he had no doubt that what had been said on the subject would be received with equal satisfaction in Ireland. Unless both those things were done, it was vain to expect an efficient staff of teachers in Ireland. He regretted that objections should have been taken to Marlborough Street College. The late Eight Hon. Alexander Macdonald, Resident Commissioner, when examined before the Royal Commission of 1868, said that, for the last 29 years, he had seen great numbers of young men come to the college from every part of Ireland, and of all religious creeds, and yet they lived in such perfect harmony together that he had never heard of a religious quarrel among them. He thought that a most desirable result and was of opinion that the fact of bringing together the teachers of different denominations had had a most happy effect on the population of Ireland. This proposal for training colleges was not a new one. It was brought before the late Lord Derby in 1867; but his Lordship told the deputation that the adoption of such a system would be destructive to national education in Ireland. He should greatly regret if separate training colleges were established in that country. The hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) had told them that chaplains would be appointed to the colleges without salaries; but how long would it be before the House would be asked to provide for salaries? He regretted that the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland had set themselves in opposition to the model schools, for there was no system in the world better than the model schools in Ireland; and if efficiently maintained, they would be able to supply a large number of trained teachers every year. In proof of that, a single model school—that of Belfast—turned out 33 males and 30 female teachers, and in 1862, 76 teachers. In any future legislation, he trusted that the Government would maintain intact those schools; for they could have nothing better.

said, that after the speech which they had heard from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland on behalf of the Government—a statement which he thought was very fair—he would not trouble the House to divide.