Commons Sitting of 12 August 1878

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Thomas Garfit, esquire, for Boston.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance [296]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
Committee—Report—Inclosure Provisional Orders [192]; Telegraphs [257]; Territorial Waters Jurisdiction [137].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Intermediate Education (Ireland) [275], and passed.
Third Reading — Exchequer Bills and Bonds (No. 2) *[295], and passed.
Withdrawn — Naval Discipline Act (1866) Amendment *[290]; Bankers' Books (Evidence) *[293].

EASTERN AFFAIRS.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord HENRY SOMERSET)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:—
  I thank you sincerely for your loyal Address. And I receive with great satisfaction the assurance of your cordial support in the course which I have pursued in order to secure Peace on permanent foundations, the independence of Europe, and the interests of My Empire.

QUESTIONS.

  INDIA—THE SALT TAX.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will lay upon the
  1762
  Table the further Papers about levelling down the Bengal Salt Tax, and those, if any, about levelling up the Madras Salt Tax; and, if he will produce Papers to show the details of taxation in Madras, and other parts of India, by which it will be seen, as mentioned in the Financial Statement of 1877 (vide Hansard), that "Bengal is more lightly taxed and richer than any of the other Provinces;" and,
  "under the permanent settlement she (Bengal) paid eight millions less land revenue than she would pay if the land revenues were liable to revision?"
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The House has already ordered, upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), a Return of any Papers relating to the changes in the salt duty made in December last. As regards the recent reduction in Northern India, we have at present no Papers; but I hope to have an opportunity of giving an explanation to-morrow. With respect to the first statement made by my noble Friend the Vice President of the Council in his Financial Statement last year, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to a speech of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, Sir Ashley Eden, in the Legislative Council, on the 27th of December, 1877, in which he described Bengal as advancing rapidly in wealth, and its people as "the most lightly taxed in all India." As to the second quotation made by the hon. and gallant Member, I can only say that it is a point which it is impossible to prove absolutely, and which must be more or less a matter of opinion. But if the statement should be challenged, I am very confident that my noble Friend would give to the House very good reasons for it.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it be true that it is laid down as a general rule that no appointment to a resident magistracy in Ireland is made of persons over forty years of age; if so, how long this rule has been in force?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: It is not the case that any general rule has been laid down on this subject; but it is the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant that,

  1763
  generally speaking, it is not desirable to appoint gentlemen who exceed the age of 40 years.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT—PRISON INSPECTORS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to select the Inspectors under the new Prisons Board from the Local Inspectors when they are found efficient?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: There are only three Inspectors of Prisons in Ireland to be appointed under the new Prisons Board. The local Inspectors, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, are a very numerous body, and they will be eligible, like all other persons, as candidates; but it is not the intention of the Government to confine it to them.

  INDIA—MYSORE.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If, in compliance with the Despatch of the Secretary of State, 16th April 1867, arrangements have been made for restoring a Native Administration in Mysore, by the time the Maharajah attains his majority in 1880?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The arrangements have been long in progress for restoring Native rule in Mysore, and, though delayed by the Famine, will be completed in all material respects by the time the Maharajah attains his majority. There will be no objection to the production of the Papers, if the hon. Member will move for them.

CUSTOMS—OUTPORT CLERKS.

  QUESTION.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the scheme for the reorganization of the Customs Department, according to which the ordinary terms of retirement under the Superannuation Act of 1859, are offered to the clerks in London, will apply as well to the out-port clerks?
  SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I can only repeat what I have already intimated to the House—that there is no intention on the part of the Government to offer to any officers of the Customs, in London or at the outports, terms of retirement other than those under the Act of 1859.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCE.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the rumoured advance of Russian forces across the Oxus, or towards Merv?
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISON: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I beg to ask him, Whether the Government have any authentic information regarding the reception of a Russian Resident at the Court of Cabul? If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer that Question now, I will repeat it on a future occasion.
  MR. BOURKE: I should feel obliged if my hon. Friend the Member for Yorkshire would ask that Question again, no Notice having been given of it. With respect to the Question of the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), no intelligence has reached the Government that the Russian forces have crossed the Oxus in the direction of Merv.

SCOTCH AND IRISH FISHERY LOAN ACCOUNTS—SECTION 10, 5 GEO. IV., c. 64.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the provisions of section 10 of the Act 5 Geo. 4, c. 64, requiring the accounts relating to the loans for Irish and Scotch Fisheries to be laid before Parliament within fourteen days at the commencement of every Session, have not been enforced, with all the details set forth in the named Clause?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONin reply, said, that so far as Ireland was concerned, the section referred to in the Question was repealed by the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 106. In regard to Scotland, the information which the hon. and gallant Member seemed to desire always appeared in the Report of the Commissioners of the Fishery Board (Scotland), which was presented annually to Parliament. At all events, he imagined that that Report would furnish the hon. Member with all the information which he required.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT—PRISON PILLOWS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the pillow

  1765
  which he stated is supplied to prisoners who have to pass the night on a plank is a lump of wood, the same as is used in England, and not a pillow in the usual meaning of the term; and, if that is so, whether he will state by whom he was informed that prisoners were supplied with a pillow?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I have confined my inquiries on this subject to Irish prisons, and I find that the information which I previously furnished to the House was correct. The pillow is made, I am told, of ticking, stuffed with cocoanut fibre, which is, in its turn, further covered with pillow slips, which are changed weekly.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I wish to ask, Has it not been stated to the House, that the Prison Rules are the same in England and Ireland?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I never so stated it, though others may have done. The Rule referring to this subject is drawn up in identical terms; but its application as regards Ireland I have already stated. England is in this matter under the charge of the Home Secretary.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether the pillow issued in England to prisoners who sleep on the plank bed is of wood?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Generally speaking, it has been a piece of wood in England; but, at the present moment, as far as women, children, and old men are concerned, orders have been given for some alteration to be made.

  CONSULS — CONVENTION WITH THE UNITED STATES.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state to the House what progress has been made towards the negotiation of a Consular Convention between Great Britain and the United States?
  MR. BOURKE: The negotiations, which are exceedingly voluminous, have been going on for some time. No Conventions can be entered into with reference to the powers and privileges of Consuls, until an Act of Parliament has been passed which shall enable Her Majesty's Government to secure to foreign Consuls in this country reciprocal advantages. Several draft Bills for this purpose have
  1766
  been prepared, and have recently been under the consideration of the Foreign Office; but it has been found necessary for various reasons to postpone until next Session the introduction of the proposed measure. I hope, however, that the Foreign Office, or some other Department, will introduce them next Session.

JUDICATURE ACTS—LEEDS ASSIZES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BARRANasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, now that it is decided that a Civil Assize in addition to those already held at Leeds is to be established, pleadings are to be made deliverable during the vacation?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): By the 57th Order framed under the Judicature Acts, no pleadings can be either delivered or amended in the Long Vacation, except by the order of the Court or a Judge. With respect, however, to pleadings in cases designed for trial at the Assize intended to be held in October at Leeds, it is clear, I think, that the vacation Judge will give the requisite orders.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)— ACTION FOR LIBEL.—QUESTION.
  MR. ISAACasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the evidence given before Mr. Woodlock, one of the Dublin Divisional Police Magistrates, by a Departmental Committee appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to inquire into the constitution and organization of the Board of Works in Ireland, and deposed to by him in certain criminal proceedings instituted by Mr. Lefroy, manager of the Queen's Printing Office in Dublin, against Mr. Burnside, proprietor of "Saunders' Irish Daily News," to have informations returned for libel; and, whether the manner in which an advance copy of the Departmental Committee's Report was obtained and published is in accordance with the rules and practices of this House, or was approved of by the Chairman and other Members of the Departmental Committee; and, if not, whether any and what steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of

  1767
  such proceedings, which have already led to litigation and other inconveniences?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Sir, I am aware that criminal proceedings have been instituted by the manager of the Queen's Printing Office in Ireland against the proprietor of Saunders's Irish Daily News. The case having been sent forward for trial, the hon. Member will not expect me to make any comments on it pending the decision of a Court of Justice; but I may say that nothing, so far as I am aware, has been done contrary to the Rules of this House or contrary to the approval of any Member of the Committee with whose Report the present proceedings are connected.

CONGRESS OF BERLIN—GREECE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have become aware of the intention of the Porte to refuse to arrange with Greece for the rectification of frontiers approved by the Congress of Berlin?
  MR. BOURKE: No, Sir; Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any such intention on the part of the Porte.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to give Notice that either to-morrow or Wednesday, upon a stage of the Appropriation Bill, I will call attention to the refusal of the Porte to carry out the suggestion of the Congress at Berlin with regard to Greece, which Her Majesty's Government seem to be unaware of.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE FLEET IN THE DARDANELLES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will be good enough to inform the House when Her Majesty's Government intend removing the Fleet, now under the command of Admiral Hornby, from the neighbourhood of Constantinople?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The British Fleet will be removed from the neighbourhood of Constantinople at the same time as the Russian Forces are removed, which I hope will be soon.

NAVY—THE CHANNEL AND PARTICULAR SERVICE SQUADRONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, The nature of the summer sea-going manœuvres, in which the officers and men of the Channel and Reserve Squadrons have been exercised; if they have been exercised in the working of submarine, harbour, and seagoing torpedoes, and in the landing of men, guns, and stores, and other duties incident to a state of war; and, if the officers have been practically educated in procuring a knowledge of coast navigation on both shores of the English Channel, North Sea, and Baltic?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have not, Sir, been able to refer to the Commanders-in-Chief of these Fleets in order to ascertain the particulars which the hon. Member asks for; but the Channel Squadron has done good duty in the Mediterranean during the last three months, and its services are well known through the medium of the Press. Both the Commanders-in-Chief of the Mediterranean and also of the Particular Service Squadrons are officers of distinguished merit, who thoroughly well know how to exercise their men and their ships in all the evolutions incident to warfare; and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty—and I think this House also—have perfect confidence in these officers.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, that in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, he should call attention to the matter early next Session.

PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS (for Mr. MELLOR)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering that this House on two occasions has unanimously insisted on disagreeing to the Amendments made by The Lords to the Poor Law Amendment Act (1876) Amendment Bill, he can explain the position in which the Bill now stands; and, whether he can state if any, and what, steps should be be taken to bring about its reconsideration by the Lords?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sorry to say that the state of this matter has now become such that its further re-consideration appears to be impossible. The Bill has been twice before this House, and twice this House has agreed to disagree with the Lords' Amendments. The question has been twice argued in the House of Lords, where the Government, I am informed by my Colleagues, did what they could to support the view of the House of Commons, but were outvoted on two occasions; and the Bill is now, I believe, dead. Therefore, I apprehend nothing more can be done in the present Session.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Bill, though not one of the first importance, was one in which a very large number of people took an interest. He was rather surprised to hear that in consequence of the disagreement between the two Houses the Bill came to an end. Generally the result of a disagreement was a Conference. He did not know whether the Government considered the Bill unworthy of a Conference.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think that all I can do is to appeal to the Speaker on a point of Order. No doubt, this matter is one of importance; and, as far as the Government is concerned, we should be anxious to give the Bill any chance of being accepted by the House of Lords. If it is in accordance with the Rules of Parliament that a Conference between the two Houses should be held, that course might be followed.
  MR. SPEAKER: Upon the Motion of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill (Mr. Mellor), the House insisted on disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments, and thereupon the Bill was dropped. If the hon. Member had thought proper he could have invited the House to appoint a Conference; but on neither occasion when the Lords' Amendments were before the House was such a course taken.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir Matthew Ridley.)
  [BILL 296.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, who had the following Motion on the Paper:—
  1770
  "That this House regrets that legislation with regard to Corrupt Practices at Elections has not taken place in the course of the present Session,"
  said, he did not, under the circumstances, intend to move his Resolution; but he would point out that this Bill contained a renewal of the Corrupt Practices Act now in force. Last year he had called attention to the negligence of Her Majesty's Government in relation to Corrupt Practices at Elections. During the present year there had been no legislation on that question, although the hours of polling and the subject of registration had been dealt with. For the last three years they had had promises from the Government on the matter, and not only had those promises been made, but they had been made in very direct terms on three several occasions by the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Leader of the House respectively, and yet the Bill dealing with the subject had not been introduced until the last week of the Session. He did not think that was a proper way of dealing with a large and serious question; and he hoped to receive from the Government a promise of such a character on this occasion that they would be ashamed to meet the House next year without having it carried out. The Bill now before the House proposed to continue in its present objectionable state the law regarding the employment of cabs, when it was notorious that at every Election that law was broken, and the sooner it was made clear the better.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISreminded the House that one of the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1875, which was carried by a majority of 11 to 5, was that Election Petitions should be tried by more than one Judge, and that no seat should be vacated upon an allegation of corrupt practices, except by a decision of two Judges. There were strong reasons for supposing that the Government did not intend to propose a measure to give effect to that recommendation. He wished to call attention to a short Return, from which hon. Members might form their own opinions as to the desirability of leaving the liberties and privileges of constituencies at the mercy of the decisions of Judges from whom there was no appeal. It was a Return showing the number of

  1771
  cases in which the decisions of single Judges in Chancery had been reversed on appeal; and the statistics proved that out of 253 decisions given, between January 1, 1877, and March 4, 1878, only 106 had remained undisturbed by superior Courts. Such, then, was the fallibility of single Judges. It was to be noticed that the Act had been originally passed for only three years; and he thought that now that it had been seven times renewed by a Continuance Bill, in spite of the strongest evidence for its discontinuance, the Government ought to have introduced a measure of reform. He trusted that during the Recess the hon. and learned Attorney General would apply his vigorous and practical mind to the matter.
  MR. O'CONORcalled attention to the continuance of the Corrupt Practices Bill. Although it was expected in 1874 that something effectual would be done in the matter of corrupt practices, nothing was attempted, for a new Government came into Office, and the matter was forgotten in the excitement of Election Petitions. Great dissatisfaction was expressed at the inaction of the Government in the matter. In 1875 they promised to introduce a Bill. The promised Bill, however, did not make its appearance that year. Indeed, it was not until the 8th of August, 1876, that a Bill appeared on the subject, and that entirely ignored the chief recommendations of a Select Committee that had sat on the subject. The Home Secretary, who had charge of the Bill, stated that his object in introducing the measure at so late a period of the Session was that it might be considered in the Recess. It was a very comprehensive Bill. It was that Bill which made permanent the system which was established in 1868. Last year he asked the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he intended to introduce the same Bill as the previous year; and he replied that it was the intention of the Government to substantially introduce the same Bill. He (Mr. O'Conor) was, however, astonished to find, after this assurance, that an entirely different Bill was introduced —a Bill, in fact, for continuing for two years more the Act of 1868. That Bill was introduced in May, but never passed the second reading. They had not now any opportunity of discussing the question, and he thought it time that some
  1772
  steps should be taken to put an end to this farce which was going on. He hoped, if the Government did not show greater aptitude next Session, that some private Member would force on the subject by the introduction of a Bill.
  MR. HOPWOODcriticized the continuance of one section of the Salmon Fisheries Act of 1861, by which the Government were enabled to appoint Inspectors under the Act. These gentlemen, who were originally appointed for three years, had neither powers nor duties of an important character, and he could not understand why an ineffectual Act should be continued.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, there could be no doubt that a Committee was appointed in 1875 to consider the whole question, and that they presented a Report; but they were not unanimous except on one point, and on other points their views were not in accord with the opinions of the Government. The Government were, however, convinced that some of the suggestions made by the Committee should be adopted. A promise was certainly made that a Bill should be introduced in 1876, and, if his memory served him, a Bill was introduced at a tolerably early part of the Session; but, owing to the state of Business, it could not be advanced so as to afford an opportunity for having the subject discussed. He promised to re-introduce the measure in the Session of 1877; but a good deal of time was then occupied— he did not care to say how—and his intentions could not be carried into effect. When, he might add, he promised to bring in another Bill this Session, he fully intended to perform that promise; but, owing to circumstances over which he had no control, he was unable to give it practical effect. It was thought right that where a candidate had been guilty of personal bribery, and where that bribery would subject him to grievous penalties under the 43rd section of the Act of 1868, there should be some further remedy given to him, and that he should have an opportunity of appealing, not only upon questions of law, but also upon questions of fact; and he was directed to introduce provisions in the Government Bill to that effect. In consequence of that alteration, and other matters to which he need not refer, he had been unable to fulfil his promise as he should

  1773
  have liked, or to bring forward the Bill until the other day; and if he had done so, no opportunity could have been afforded for discussion on the subject, in consequence of the time which had to be given to the debates on the Eastern Question, and other questions of importance. He would do his best to secure an early discussion on the subject next Session; and when that discussion was obtained, no doubt hon. Gentlemen who entertained strong views on the question would strongly express them. He would further observe that if the Committee were right in the views which they took, the Government were wrong; for, with regard to their principal recommendation—that an Election Petition should in future be tried before two Judges, instead of one—the Government differed from them in opinion, inasmuch as they believed that the present tribunal for the trial of those Petitions had, in the main, worked satisfactorily. It was desirable that cases affecting the seats of Members of Parliament should be disposed of quickly; and, generally speaking, the questions of fact which were raised were exceedingly simple, and there was no difficulty in. dealing with them once intelligible principles had been laid down with reference to what did and what did not constitute agency, and some other matters. On questions of law there was an appeal; but he certainly felt—and the feeling was shared by the Government—that where a candidate was pronounced by the decision of an Election Judge to be guilty of personal bribery, and where such a decision entailed on the candidate the loss of his seat and other grievous disabilities and penalties, fixing on him a stigma which might last for life, there ought to be either a tribunal consisting of a greater number of Judges, or, it might be, a jury trial presided over by a Judge, or, what he thought still better, a right of appeal. That appeal the Government measure proposed to give, and he hoped the question would be fully discussed next Session.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDhoped the Government would deal with the matter before a General Election took place, which could not be very far distant. The question was one of very great importance. In other cases of importance, where questions of fact were left to the decision of one Judge, there was in-
  1774
  variably an appeal, subject to certain limitations; and surely the question of unseating a Member for personal bribery was one of sufficient importance to justify an appeal even on matters of fact. There would be no difficulty in forming a tribunal which would be satisfactory to the country. He had himself a doubt as to whether two Judges would be better than one, because, when they differed in opinion, the trial would prove inoperative; but he suggested that there might be two Assessors appointed to act with the Judge in trying questions of fact, or that there should be a right of new trial on application to a Court consisting of several Judges—it being necessary, as in other cases, in order to obtain a new trial, to show that the decision in question was against the weight of evidence. What objection could there be to introducing some principle of appeal of that description into the trial of Election Petitions? He hoped the Government would take the matter into their serious consideration, and that the hon. and learned Attorney General would, in the name and on behalf of the Government, promise to introduce and carry a Bill dealing with the subject in the course of next Session.
  MR. BUTT, who had been a Member of the Committee of 1875, said, he would not long take up the time of the House on the subject; but he wished to call attention to the position in which the question now stood. He did think it was a very serious thing to give to one Judge the power of inflicting a penalty in addition to unseating Members, and of disqualifying them from seeking election again in the same Parliament. It was contrary to the general principles of our law. He was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not in his place, because he asked him, in the year 1876, not to resort in future to the expedient of renewing this measure —the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt Practices) Bill—in the ordinary Continuance Bill, but to give the House an opportunity of discussing the subject; and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was positive—that it would not be placed in the Continuance Bill, but would be put forward in such a shape that the House would have an opportunity of considering the whole question. Were the right hon. Gentleman now present, he

  1775
  (Mr. Butt) would ask whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce into the Bill one of its provisions to which many hon. Members objected? He would remind the House of a very remarkable instance in connection with this matter. In the year 1874, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) quoted from some declarations of Lord Salisbury which were made in the House of Lords, in which the noble Lord made the strongest protest against this system of renewing important Bills under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. At that time assurances were given, which amounted to a distinct pledge to the House, that this system of continuing Bills would be dropped, and that no important Bills would be thereby renewed. In 1877, he (Mr. Butt) again asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question on this subject, whether he would then give an assurance on this matter, and the assurance was repeated; and he did now think that before they renewed this Bill for another year they ought to have an assurance, not from the hon. and learned Attorney General, who had the best intentions in regard to this matter, but from the Government, that this Bill would be brought forward early next Session. For himself, he would rather go back to the old system than be subjected to the present Bill, which, he thought, ought to be fairly considered.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTjoined in the appeal which had been made to the Government, that they would give some assurance as to this Bill being placed in a different position next Session. He did not attribute any blame to the hon. and learned Attorney General, who had done all he could to redeem his promise; but the question was one of great importance, and ought to be dealt with before the General Election, which could not be very far off. He asked that the Bill might be placed in the first rank of Government measures next Session, with the intention of then re-considering the subject, so that it might not be hung up for an indefinite period.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was quite ready, on the part of the Government, to give the assurance which was asked for by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). He thought it was undoubtedly a matter which ought not to
  1776
  stand over any longer; and although, of course, there had been a great jostling amongst Bills this Session, and this measure could not be brought forward in time, he thought he could undertake, with a good conscience, that the Government would make it one of their first measures next year.
  MR. MONKwished to remind the House that a promise had been given early in this Session that a Bill for continuing and extending the powers of the Railway Commissioners Act should be brought in this year, and said, that both the Railway Commissioners and the public interested in the matter were extremely anxious that an amending Bill should be brought forward, and that the powers of the Commissioners should not be limited as they were at present. He hoped an assurance would be given that the whole subject would be dealt with next year.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that the pledges to which the hon. Gentleman referred were only conditional. Besides, there were two classes of views on the subject, some persons being desirous that the Commission should be abolished, while others wished to see its powers enlarged. He had thought it better, in these circumstances, to postpone legislation with regard to it till next year; but he hoped early in the Session to bring in a Bill dealing with it.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 275.]
(Mr. J. Lowther.)
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 275.]

  CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in moving that the Bill, as amended, be now considered, said, he desired to inform the House of the names of the Commissioners selected under the Bill. Giving them in alphabetical order, they were—The Eight Hon. John Thomas Ball, the Earl of Belmore, Professor Molloy, the O'Conor Don, the Eight Hon. Christopher Palles, Professor Porter, and Professor Salmon. These names required no introduction, still less any explanation from him. Hon. Members, however, might be struck with the omission of one name, which he believed all of them would

  1777
  have desired to have seen in the list— he meant that of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). He regretted to have to inform the House that the hon. and learned Gentleman, although most desirous, as he always had been, to give all the assistance in his power to the promotion of the cause of education in Ireland, felt himself precluded by his multifarious engagements, and also, unfortunately, by the state of his health, from undertaking the duties of a Commissioner.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS, who had a Notice on the Paper for the consideration of the Amendments that day three months, said, that the Bill had been promised to Parliament in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech at the commencement of the Session, and now they were asked to discuss some of the main provisions of the measure on the 12th of August, when a large number of Members had deserted their duty, when there was only an attenuated House, and when, if it were not for the serried ranks of Irish Members opposite, who had so loyally obeyed the call of their distinguished Leader, there would hardly be a quorum. Not only the House, but the people of Ireland, it seemed to him, had not been properly treated by the Government in this matter. Unfortunately, the form of government of the Episcopal Church of Ireland was such that neither by Courts, Synod, or meetings, had there been an opportunity of testing the opinion of that religious Body since the introduction of the Bill. Upon the second reading, the hon. Member for Dungannon (Mr. T. A. Dickson), speaking on behalf of one section of Presbyterians, said their support of the measure was all but unanimous, and challenged the right of himself (Mr. Lewis) to speak as a representative of that Body. The hon. Member was mistaken in supposing he had made any such claim. At that time, public opinion was doubtful and quiescent; but since the Bill had passed Committee a portion of the Protestant community of Ireland had not been slow to express their opinion upon the character of the Bill. On Thursday week last the Presbytery of Belfast, which represented 60 congregations, had,
  1778
  with but one dissentient, passed a vote of condemnation of the Bill. The Ballymena Presbytery, also a great centre of Presbyterianism in the county of Antrim, unanimously condemned it; as did also that of Glandermot, near Londonderry. But more than that, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, presided over by Dr. Porter, one of the most accomplished, experienced, and judicious scholars to be found in any of the Churches of Ireland, came unanimously to a resolution adverse to the Bill. That was the product of the last few days; and if another month could elapse, the measure would have received the almost unanimous condemnation of the whole Presbyterian Body, which comprised nearly half of the Protestant communions of Ireland. This was the result of the extraordinary course which the Government had pursued, keeping back the Bill until the House of Commons was attenuated and in the power of the Government, aided by their new allies and united Home Rule Party. He hoped the results of the alliance would not be so disastrous as some had anticipated; but when they saw the Government and the Home Rulers shaking hands over the dead body of the mixed system of education in Ireland he could not congratulate the House or the country upon it. The Government in Committee refused to admit anything like a real Conscience Clause, wishing Clause 7 to be read in that sense, although it was altogether different to that in the English and Scotch Elementary Education Acts. This Bill dealt with public money; because, by the Irish Church Disendowment Act, these funds were withdrawn from private use, and from both the old corporation and the new corporation of the Church of Ireland. The Disendowment Act, however, expressly stated the purposes to which those funds should be applied; and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), in his speech proposing that Act, distinctly refused to allow them to be applied to educational purposes, as in that case they would be likely to lead to sectarian bitterness and party strife. The opponents of the Bill had been beaten on the point of the Conscience Clause and of inspection. His third objection to the measure was that it was a direct step towards concurrent endowment, and therefore was a reversal of

  1779
  the principle of legislation that had been acted upon for the last quarter of a century. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had suggested that the sting would be taken out of the Bill if the results fees were dispensed with, and the whole of the money spent in Exhibition Prizes. How did the Government treat that suggestion? Not a word was said upon it by the Government, and they treated it with scorn and indignation. The fact was that this Bill was nothing less than the precursor of a University Bill drawn upon the same lines which had been promised to a certain section of that House, and to be introduced either next year or the year after; and as it was his intention to test the opinion of the House on several of the leading Amendments, he would not waste 10 minutes by asking the House to divide at this stage. With reference to those Amendments, he would read an extract from a letter of the 5th of August, and dated from this august Assembly, from the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), which had called back the Irish Members from their Recess in such numbers. The letter said—
  "You will perceive by the Notice Paper that the opponents of the Bill will endeavour to secure its rejection; but, failing that, to carry-certain sectarian Amendments—[Mr. BUTT: Hear, hear!]—which will entirely change the character of the measure."
  He would relieve the hon. and learned Member from any apprehension on the first point, by stating that at present he should not divide the House against the Bill; but should it pass the present stage without amendment, he should feel it his duty to give hon. Members an opportunity of voting against the Bill by moving its rejection on the third reading. He denied that the Amendment of which he had given Notice was of a sectarian character. It was a mere copy, mutatis mutandis, of the Conscience Clause, in the English Elementary Act of 1870.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendments are not before the House. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Question.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he had no intention of discussing the Amendments. He only wished to say their object was to keep an open door for every one of these schools; to protect the pupils from proselytism when there;
  1780
  and to make sure they would have all the advantages from the expenditure of those public funds to which all classes were alike entitled. The Government had now, at the last moment, under the great pressure which had been put upon them, given the House the names of the Commissioners. He only knew the gentlemen named in a very general and public way; and, on the whole, he thought they might be taken as a fair representation of public opinion, with the exception that whereas there were three Roman Catholics and three Episcopalians on the Commission there was but one Presbyterian, although the Presbyterian Body comprised half the Protestant population. But although he might disagree from the leading principles of the Bill, he was satisfied that Her Majesty's Government had introduced it with the most bonâ fide intention to improve intermediate education in Ireland. In his opinion, it was a mistake not to require each State-aided school in Ireland to receive day boarders, who should be admitted at certain times when there would be no fear of proselytism by either religious teaching, services, or symbols. He objected to the measure, however, not so much in itself, but because of what it led to; and the Roman Catholics themselves looked upon it as the beginning of a system of direct endowment of denominational education. A Belfast paper, which had been sent anonymously to him, stated—
  "It is, no doubt, a fact that the Roman Catholics will reap largo advantages from the Bill; but their anxiety is more as to what it promises than as to what it gives—the richer gifts of which it is the herald—for this Bill does not cover the whole ground. It is the mere fringe; but before the larger questions come to be settled, the people will be educated."
  Yes; educated by a Tory Government— by the successors of the late Lord Derby, who introduced the mixed system. Would the Government throw away this splendid heritage, which was connected with no particular Party, and deliberately break down the hedge which surrounded it? The Government now had an opportunity of repudiating any such policy, and he hoped they would avail themselves of it. He was led to understand that this Bill was likely to be the precursor of a University Bill. It did a good thing in a bad way. That being so, the duty rested with those who

  1781
  thought there was something to be preserved in the education of Ireland to resist the measure. Members had been taken by surprise at the end of the Session, in being asked to reverse the policy sanctioned by Parliament for many years. For himself, whatever might be the result, he would never regret having lifted up his humble voice in striving to induce the House to amend the Bill in a most important direction. Even though he should vote alone, he would give his vote against what he considered was the beginning of a downward and perilous course.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the hon. Member for Dungannon (Mr. T. A. Dickson), who was unavoidably absent, had written to him to explain that what he stated on the second reading was that it was a most remarkable—he would not say a suspicious—fact, but a fact eminently worthy of the attention of the House, that of all the Irish Presbyterian Gentlemen sitting in that House, not one could be procured to get up and attack this measure except the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry, who was not himself an Irish Presbyterian.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Charles Lewis) had again referred to the fact that he, having on the second reading of the Bill trespassed on the indulgence of the House for some considerable time, did not feel himself justified in making another speech when the discussion did not extend to a late period of the evening. On a subsequent occasion, he explained that no disrespect or discourtesy was intended either to him or to any other Member of the House by the course he had adopted. His hon. Friend had, however, now repeated the allegation that he was wanting in respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone). Indeed, his hon. Friend said he had treated the observations of the right hon. Gentleman with scorn and indignation. Now, he entirely demurred to the application of those terms. In point of fact, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a warm eulogy of almost every line of the Bill. It was an expression, exchoed by those who sat around him, of gratitude to the Government for having dealt with this question. In these circumstances, he felt he should not be justified in detaining the House
  1782
  by making a reply to a speech with almost every sentence of which he himself agreed.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYspoke in high terms of the appointment of the Members of the Board, stating that they were gentlemen of general ability, who possessed the confidence of the country, and who had had large experience in dealing with public questions. This matter of public confidence in the Commissioners was, he considered, of far greater importance than many hon. Members supposed; and he believed that they enjoyed the thorough confidence of the people of Ireland. It ought to be remembered that former educational schemes had failed in Ireland, because they were not brought in in a proper manner. In regard to the present scheme, he thought that the Government had acted wisely in most of what they had done. He quite joined in the regret of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) as to the absence of a Presbyterian Member on the Board. He suggested, with great deference, that there ought to be two paid Commissioners appointed—one of whom should be a Catholic, and another should be a member of one of the Protestant forms of religion—and he thought it was due to the Presbyterians that one of their number should be appointed. The great opposition to this Bill had come from a certain section of the Presbyterians in the North; but he, speaking there as a Catholic, begged to say that the spirit of liberality and fairness in which its provisions would be exercised would show that the suspicions entertained of his Catholic fellow-countrymen were unfounded.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Londonderry for having again pointed out the direction in which this Bill went. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not desire to withhold a single shilling of the proposed grant from the encouragement of intermediate education in Ireland; but this was a case in which it was possible to season a gift with what might be fairly described as an element of poison. The hon. Member for Londonderry spoke of the Amendments he had attempted to make in the Bill in Committee; but he had said nothing of the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr.

  1783
  Courtney) — an Amendment which he (Mr. Newdegate) intended to submit to the House in the present stage of the Bill. That Amendment was directed against the latter part of the Bill, without interfering with the first and the main principle of the Bill—the proposed foundation of scholarships and rewards for the acquisition of knowledge by the middle classes of Ireland. With that, the Amendment he intended to propose would not interfere; but it struck at the second part of the Bill, which proposed the payment by results to the managers of schools in which successful candidates for prizes were educated. Let the House observe the principle which was involved in this proposal. Fifty, at least, of the schools which it was proposed by this Bill to endow were known to be Conventual or Monastic Institutions, and the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), when alluding to this subject in 1874, said that he did not urge this proposal of payment to the managers of these schools, because that must inevitably raise the question of concurrent endowment. The Lord Chancellor, in proposing this Bill "elsewhere," said that it was directly connected with future measures for what he called "University Reform in Ireland." Therefore, if the principle of concurrent endowment was allowed to remain in this Bill, that was obviously the principle which it was intended to transfer to University Education in Ireland. This they had on the authority of the author of the Bill himself. Now, he had given Notice of an Amendment, upon which he should presently ask the opinion of the House, and he desired to repeat that his object was that the principle of the Maynooth Grant should not be renewed; but that the principle upon which the Queen's Colleges in Ireland were founded should be adhered to and extended by the operation of this Bill. He remembered the establishment of the Maynooth Grant in 1845. He remembered, also, the establishment of the Queen's Colleges. For nearly 30 years the Maynooth Grant continued to be a bone of contention and a source of discord. The principle upon which the Queen's Colleges were founded was completely different, was thoroughly consistent with the principle of the Irish national system of primary education; though the Queen's Colleges had not
  1784
  been so successful as they might have been, but for the bitter opposition of the successor of the lamented Archbishop Murray, the enlightened Roman Catholic Archbishop, who consented to the principle of the Queen's Colleges. Had it not been for the bitter opposition of Cardinal Cullen, those Colleges would have been more successful than they had been; still, they had been successful. But the principle introduced in the latter part of this Bill was a different principle. It was the principle of the Maynooth Grant; it was fraught with all the disturbing influences which had been incident to the existence of that Grant; until at last, for the sake of peace, Parliament commuted it under the Act for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Protestant Church in Ireland; commuted it under a promise that the principle of it should no more be renewed than the principle of the establishment of the Protestant Church in Ireland. He looked upon this portion of the Bill with the deepest suspicion, and for this reason—that it was the sequence to a system of agitation in this House—a system of agitation which Parliament had had reason to lament; a system of obstruction in this House which had taken the place of external agitation, and had proved highly detrimental to the character of the House. With the permission of the House, he would state a little more fully why he objected to the proposed renewal of the principle of the Maynooth Grant, as contained in this Bill, remembering that, out of the House, and especially in Ireland, it would be represented that this concession was the fruit of agitation, the fruit of obstruction. How did Mr. O'Connell receive the intelligence, in 1845, that the Maynooth Grant was to be enlarged and made permanent by Sir Robert Peel? He (Mr. Newdegate) had quoted the passage which he was about to read before in that House; but he would now quote it again. Mr. O'Connell received a copy of the Maynooth Bill in Conciliation Hall, where he had organized the Repeal agitation, and these were the terms in which he expressed his gratitude—
  "I would not, I confess, go to this length when I came into this room to-day; for I had a little inkling that there was some trick under all this liberality; but my friend, Dr. Gray, brought me the Act of Parliament, and I read

  1785
  it in my seat here, and I proclaim it excellent in all its parts. [Cheers.] But is this to make us give up agitation? [Cries of'No; we will die first,' and cheers.] I do not moan to quarrel with anyone who differs in opinion from me on any subject; still less am I inclined to quarrel with anyone who thinks with me that it was the Repeal agitation that produced this change in Sir Robert Peel with reference to Maynooth. [Cheers.] Agitation, I thank you. [Cheers.] Conciliation Hall, I am obliged to you. [Cheers.] Repeal Association, Maynooth ought to pray for you. [Loud cheering.] There is a story told of the officers of the Irish Brigade. As long as a young man who came into the French Army, as a cadet, conducted himself well, he was left a cadet; so they always found it necessary to become a little riotous to get promoted to the rank of officer. [Laughter.]"
  [Cheers from the Irish Benches.] Yes, he (Mr. Newdegate) perfectly understood that cheer. Mr. O'Connell continued—
  "We, in Conciliation Hall, represent the officer. The Irish cadets understand the policy of misconducting themselves. This is a boon to us to misbehave in future, and we are too honest not to give them the price for their money. [Cheers and Laughter.] When they tell us that we should thank Sir Robert Peel, and the 200 myrmidons that go with him from one side of the House to the other, I say, Thank Conciliation Hall! Thank Agitation! [Cheers.]"
  The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House the other day that he had viewed obstruction in the House more leniently than most men; and he (Mr. Newdegate) defied the right hon. Gentleman to escape from the inference which would be drawn in Ireland, that this renewal of the principle of the Maynooth Grant—this connection of the administration of public money with the internal system and discipline of Monastic and Conventual Institutions—had been made in the same sense as Mr. O'Connell understood the gift of the Grant to Maynooth. He remembered that the speech of Mr. O'Connell and the passing of the Maynooth Bill were followed by two years of such outrage in Ireland, such an amount of murder, and such a disgraceful condition that, although he (Mr. Newdegate) voted against a Coercion Bill when it was first proposed by Sir Robert Peel, he was compelled to vote for a similar Bill in 1847. Now this, he contended, was the amari aliquid in the Bill before the House. He would willingly promote intermediate education in Ireland; but if the Government were about to renew the principle of the Maynooth Grant, the connection of their officers with
  1786
  the methods of teaching and discipline of these Roman Catholic institutions, there was some reason for the Earl of Beaconsfield appealing to the Conservative deputations who lately waited upon him to suppress what he indicated as eccentricities, and to apply themselves to the organization of opinion, and so manifest their devotion to him personally, that he might be able to do anything and go anywhere. They might now have a shrewd suspicion of the sense of which this advice was given, and of the direction in which the Earl of Beaconsfield was going. He trusted, however, that when the House proceeded with the further consideration of the Bill, Her Majesty's Government would yet be disposed to free the measure then under consideration from the principle of the Maynooth Grant, which was directly involved in that part of the Bill which came under the deceptive term of "payment by results." He hoped the Government might be disposed to concede the Amendment, which he, as a humble, but consistently Conservative, Member of that House, intended to propose; but if they did not, they might rely upon it that they had not heard the last of that which, sooner or later, they would find to be a fatal gift.
  SIR JOHN LESLIEconsidered that the names of the Commissioners would give general satisfaction to the people of Ireland. He did not share in those exaggerated fears which were expressed by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) or the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), in regard to this question of intermediate education, but looked upon the system as one of progress and enlightenment. He looked forward with hope to see the measure carried out in the spirit in which it was conceived, and that it should not be allowed to drift in the same direction as the National School Board had allowed the national system to drift, which was away from its fundamental rules, and, as he thought in that instance, to the great disadvantage of education in some parts of the country.
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, pointed out that the most striking part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had been directed to the payment of result fees. The Chief Secretary had stated that the

  1787
  speech did not touch the vital principle of the Bill. He therefore hoped, when the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) came to be discussed, the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be prepared to strike out the section of the Bill authorizing the payment of such fees.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he should he delighted to see intermediate education introduced into Ireland to all classes and to all religions; but it seemed to him that if the Bill was intended for the benefit of those who could not send their children a long distance to be educated, the object sought would not be gained. He considered the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) rather extraordinary—that one of the two paid Commissioners should be a Roman Catholic and the other a Presbyterian, thus excluding every member of the disestablished Church from any share in the administration of the funds which were originally the property of the Church to which he himself belonged. He was afraid that the system of payment by results would have this effect— that the teachers would direct all their attention to the clever boys, to the neglect of the great body of the pupils.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDcongratulated the Government upon having introduced a Bill which seemed to satisfy almost everybody. He hoped they would follow it up by a measure providing for denominational education and the endowment of a Catholic University.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  New Clause (Reports and accounts), —(Mr. James Lowther,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISmoved the following clause:—
  (Regulations for conduct of schools.)
  "The Board shall not make any payment to the managers of any school, unless it shall he satisfied of the compliance of the managers of such school with the following conditions:—
  "(1.) It shall not he required, as a condition, of any child being admitted into or continuing in the school that he shall attend or abstain from attending any place of religious worship, or that he shall attend any religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects in the school or elsewhere from which observance or instruction he
  1788
  may be withdrawn by the parent, or that he shall, if withdrawn by his parent, attend the school on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs;
  "(2.) The time or times during which any religious observance is practised, or instruction in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school, shall be either at the beginning or at the end, or at the beginning and the end of such meeting, and shall be inserted in a time table to be approved by the Board, and to be kept permanently and conspicuously affixed in every schoolroom, and any scholar may be withdrawn by his parent from such observances or instruction without forfeiting any of the other benefits of the school."
  The hon. Member said, he should think it his duty to take the opinion of the House on the clause. It was taken almost verbatim from the Elementary Education Act, and, therefore, came with an imprimatur which, at all events, would be satisfactory. What had the Legislature done to give effect to the Conscience Clause in England and Scotland? The Conscience Clause — or, rather, the Conscience Regulation—in Ireland did not exist upon legislation, but upon the rules and regulations made by the National Board. The regulations under the management of the Board system in Ireland as regarded elementary education were so generally analogous to those in operation in England and Scotland, that one might venture to regard them all as under one heading. They required that the time set apart for religious worship and religious observance should be either at the commencement or at the end, or partly at the commencement and partly at the end, and that the rest of the day should be solely devoted to secular education. The first part of the clause said that no payment should be made to the managers of any school unless the Board should be satisfied that no pupil at the school should be permitted to remain in attendance at any religious instruction which the parents would not sanction. If it was intended to set apart a certain portion of the day, what was the difficulty in saying so in so many words? It was intended to give the parent apparent protection without any real protection being afforded. For all that appeared in that clause, there might not be a single school in Ireland receiving benefits under this Act which was not purely of a denominational character;

  1789
  whereas the policy of the Legislature under the English and Scotch Act, and the Irish national system, had been to keep open every school endowed with public money, so that it might be available by members of every religious denomination. He would assume that the Government wished to keep up the principle upon which the Legislature had uniformly acted—that where public money was voted for school purposes, it should be open to the whole community; but this clause did not attempt anything of that kind, and in its present shambling form, it seemed as if it had been framed for the express purpose of not meeting the case. At a deputation to the Lord Chancellor, the statement was made that the clause had been framed on the precedents of the endowed schools; but these precedents dealt with private endowments, and the State had no right to interfere with them. The Irish Church Act of 1869 required that the Church surplus should be, in the main, appropriated for the relief of persons suffering from unavoidable calamity or misfortune. That directly pointed to the relief of lunatics, or persons suffering from intense poverty and distress. If it had been applied in that manner, it would have relieved the rates; and, therefore, in taking that money and appropriating it for that purpose, they were only trifling, shifting it from one portion of the national pocket to the other; but the Irish Church was treated as a corporation of a private character, which ought to be disendowed. Therefore, it seemed to him that they were dealing with it much in the same way as if they were voting so much of the grant to Maynooth for the purposes of public education. He asked the House, accordingly, to pass a real Conscience Clause, not one which was a mere name and. a shadow. There was no provision in the Bill requiring any school to be kept open or to receive a single day scholar.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYD, in seconding the Motion, said, that while it had always been part of his political creed that there should be no distinction between Catholics and Protestants, he was not prepared to say that Catholics should have advantages which Protestants did not enjoy in any part of the United Kingdom. The clause was found to answer in England and Scotland, and he
  1790
  could not conceive any reason why it should not be applied to Ireland. The clause in the Bill was not a Conscience Clause at all. It was a mere sham. It was competent, as the Bill now stood, to shut a school in the face of any pupil whose parents objected to the religious observances in the school, and so to exclude him altogether.
  New Clause—(Mr. Charles Lewis,)— brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. J. P. CORRYsaid, that knowing the feeling which existed amongst the Presbyterians in the North of Ireland, he felt bound to support the Amendment. No doubt, the Bill was introduced to improve intermediate education; but he thought that no child should be shut out of the benefit of the grants made under the Bill. That could not be secured unless the Conscience Clause was made stringent; and he should therefore support his hon. Friend if he went to a division, which he hoped he would do.
  MR. GREGORYopposed the clause. The names of the Commissioners had been received with universal approval, and he thought they might be trusted to carry out the Act. He did not believe the Bill contained the principle on which the Maynooth Grant was made. It was a Bill for the promotion of intermediate education in Ireland, and as such must necessarily deal with boarding schools as well as day schools. The proposed new clause said that no school could enter into the competitions provided under the Bill if the children receiving instruction in such school were compelled to attend any place of religious worship. He ventured to think there was hardly any boarding school in this country, and he presumed it was the same in Ireland, where the children were not compelled to attend some place of religious worship, generally such as their parents chose; and, therefore, if the clause was adopted, it would have the effect of shutting out from the competitions any child brought up in a school where religious worship was required.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis)

  1791
  had more than once informed the House they were dealing with public money. Just as the county rates in Galway were public money, the Church funds were public money; but in the sense that it was Imperial money the Church surplus was not public money. It was Irish money, raised in Ireland; and he thought, therefore, that it should be exclusively devoted to Irish objects, and that in its disposal deference should be made to the wishes of the Irish people. Now, he might remind the House that when the Bill was in Committee an Amendment to the effect proposed by the hon. Member was rejected by 50 Irish Members to 3. He believed that the Conscience Clause as it stood in the Bill would be quite sufficient for the protection of children; and that the only result of adopting the clause suggested by the hon. Member would be to harass Catholic schools. There was a large Protestant population in Londonderry and Belfast; but there was a much smaller one in the three towns of Galway, Tuam, and Ballinasloe. In each of these towns there was a Protestant school, and the Protestants would not be forced to send their children to Catholic schools. In such circumstances, the new clause could have no useful object. It was said that Presbyterians were anxious for mixed education; but it was not shown that they were placed at any disadvantage by the Conscience Clause already provided. It was all very well for Presbyterians to have less objection than others to mixed education; but that was no reason why they should force it on others. He believed that the Roman Catholics would hardly get their fair share of the grants to be made under the Bill, if that share were tested by numbers. With a few exceptions, hon. Gentlemen did not object to the Roman Catholics deriving this assistance; and he hoped the House would reject an Amendment which would be fatal to the efficiency of the Bill.
  MR. MACARTNEYrepudiated the idea that those who approved of the Amendment desired to harass Catholic schools. It was an utterly unfounded accusation. Nothing could be further from his own thoughts than any such intention. The imputation came with a bad grace from those who advocated equal laws for England and Ireland, seeing that the clause was already in
  1792
  operation in England. To say that the same principle should not be applied to Ireland was to deny that the property derived from the disestablishment of the Irish Church was not public property, which it was asserted to be at the time the Act was carried. When it was said that it was peculiarly Irish property because it was paid by Irish land, it must be remembered that the majority of those who paid it would not derive any benefit from the Bill, for they did not belong to the Roman Catholic or the Presbyterian Churches.
  SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURTfully admitted that the surplus of the disestablished Irish Church was public property, and also that, as it was derived from Irish sources, it should be applied to Irish purposes; and the only question was, how was it to be applied? No doubt there had been in this country a strong feeling in favour of an undenominational system of elementary education; but Parliament established what was substantially a denominational system, and that fact materially altered his views as to what ought to be done in regard to Ireland. He could be no party to pressing upon the people of the latter country a system which had not been insisted upon for England. The argument that the present proposal was one for placing Ireland in the same position as England, would be tenable if it were not that the English Conscience Clause was enforced only in elementary schools. It was obvious that intermediate schools must be dealt with in a different manner; and the Government had taken as their model the clause in the English Endowed Schools Act, which was stronger than this clause, for it required that the education to be given should have the sanction of parents. It was of no use imposing conditions that would not be accepted by managers of schools, and they must deal with the facts as they found them existing in Ireland. He should support the clause as it stood in the Bill.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that although denominational education, both in primary schools and at Universities, was assisted in England, the State had required, as a condition of that assistance, that the Conscience Clause and open inspection should be carried out. He admitted, however, with shame and regret, that at the great intermediate public schools of the country attendance

  1793
  at the religious instruction of the Church of England was still required; but those who had conscientiously opposed that restriction upon education in England were perfectly free to claim for Ireland the liberty which they had not been able to obtain for England. He could not understand why the managers of a school receiving public money should refuse to receive a boy professing the religion of the minority. If the parent did not object to send the boy, he did not see why the managers should object. The extreme jealousy which appeared to be felt with regard to this Proviso on the part of managers did show that there would be intruders if there was liberty for parents to send their children. It was not a matter of creed, but of the majority and minority, and they were bound to protect the rights of minorities. He warmly supported the clause of the hon. Member for Londonderry, which he hoped would be pressed to a division.
  MR. BUTTsaid, if there were a number of Protestants who were anxious—enthusiastic, even—to place their children under the guidance of Roman Catholic teachers, he could understand the clause which had been moved; but it was no such thing. This clause was not a Conscience Clause. A Conscience Clause, according to the meaning he had always understood was attached to it, was a clause introduced for the protection of the child. He said that that subject was fully provided for by the clause which the Bill contained at present; and it would be impossible, he thought, to frame a clause which would more effectually gain that object than the one now contained in the Bill. The clause in the Bill said that a child should not be excluded from the benefits of a secular education, even if that child was prevented from joining in the religious instruction. He asked whether that did not do everything for the child that could be done? He knew it had been objected that there were very few places where there would be children of different persuasions in the same school. He must say that he thought the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Charles Lewis) made a number of regulations vexatiously interfering with the ordinary rules of schools, and doing so in schools in which there was not the remotest chance of children of different religions being educated together. He
  1794
  must, in justice, say that the hon. Member had greatly changed if he wished to vex or harass any human being; but what he wished to point out was that the effect of this new clause would be both harassing and annoying. The Bill was not a measure for the purpose of establishing a great system of undenominational or intermediate education in Ireland. No Government would attempt to do that; but it was a very modest attempt to aid existing institutions—to take the institutions they found there, and to aid them. And how did the Bill propose to aid them? It would aid them by payment by results, and the true test would be, could they encourage education efficiently? The effect of the Amendment would be to exclude at once a large number of schools, because they knew that every Roman Catholic manager would not agree to the test that was proposed in it. He asked the House to say if that was the way in which they would remedy the injustice? There were already Protestant endowments for Protestant education in Ireland. One of the grievances of which Catholics complained was that they had none, and now, when a very poor and small aid was proposed to be given to schools not founded by this House, hon. Gentlemen would pass a rule which would admit Presbyterian and exclude Catholic schools. The great merit of the Bill was that it avoided altogether entering into religious dissensions, and took part with neither denominational or undenominational. It came forward upon that principle, and it said to the managers—"Educate the boy, and you will be paid exactly in proportion as you do so." What should be the wish of every Protestant? Why, it should be to bring education into those schools in which they would tell him there was now only darkness.
  "Didicisse fideliter artes,
  Emollit mores nec sinit esse feros."
  Instead, however, of that, by pushing this Amendment, they would, by way of meeting the ignorance which it was said existed in Roman Catholic schools, give them no encouragement whatever. Such a view as that was most bigoted.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISrose to Order. He never made the slightest imputation of ignorance or bigotry whatever.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he really was not thinking of the hon. Gentleman at the time.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not named him, he certainly looked at him.
  MR. BUTTcould assure the hon. Gentleman that he did so unconsciously, and if the hon. Member's form reached his eye, it certainly did not reach his mind. He was not thinking of the hon. Gentleman at all.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had his eye on him (Mr. Macartney) while he used the words referred to.
  MR. BUTTassured hon. Gentlemen that he had not meant any hon. Member in particular; but he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that this Amendment was framed upon a false and bigoted view of the teaching of Roman Catholics in Ireland. ["Order!"] He was at perfect liberty to say that. He believed there was no subject which was spoken upon with so much inaccuracy as the subject of mixed education in Ireland. There was no such thing as mixed education in Ireland. The Presbyterians would not have it. He must say he wished the hon. Gentleman could induce the Presbyterians to admit the Roman Catholics to their schools. How was it, then, that the Presbyterians condemned the Bill? He had seen the papers, and they said the Presbyterians would not be satisfied with any system of education that did not provide united secular and separate religious instruction. Now, he had the greatest respect for the Presbyterians; and if it was a matter relating to their own Church, he would attach far more weight to their opinion on this matter than he did. But if they wished united education in secular matters and separate education in religion, they could have it, for they could establish separate schools for religious education. He must say that, so far as he could see, the Bill did not interfere in any way with any Presbyterian obtaining the benefits of this Bill. He did not attach the same weight to these representations coming from a body which he so highly respected as he should if they had come in a legitimate capacity. The question, after all, was this. This Bill gave certain advantages. Would the House say now— "We will withdraw those advantages from the Roman Catholic schools?" That was the real question, because this Amendment imposed conditions that they knew a great many Roman Catholic
  1796
  managers would not accept. [An hon. MEMBER: And Protestants, too.] Yes; and Protestant managers, too. He asked whether there was a Protestant parent in that House who, if anxious for his son's education, would send him to a Roman Catholic boarding-school, where the Roman Catholic religion was to he taught, under the control of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics? Did they did not see every day in the Courts of Chancery cases arise in which there was a dispute as to what religion children were to be brought tip in? And the Lord Chancellor, when he decided, said, let the child be kept at a Roman Catholic school or at a Protestant school, as the case might be. That showed that the law recognized a distinction. This Bill was, perhaps, not entirely approved of by all parties; but he considered that it was a fair compromise between the contending parties. He therefore hoped the House would not spoil the measure, and would not permit any doctrinaires to hack it; but would take the course of ignoring all religious discussions, which could not be gone into without defeating the object of the Bill, and take the educational institutions as they had grown up amongst the people of Ireland, aid all those institutions fairly, and ignore altogether those quarrels with which the House had nothing to do.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that on the second reading of the Bill, the clause under discussion was completely ignored, with the exception that some suggestions respecting it had emanated from a quarter entitled to great respect. It had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich that the 7th clause should be altogether omitted, and his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) seemed to think that the right hon. Gentleman's observations had not been sufficiently attended to. His (Mr. Lowther's) answer on a former occasion was that he thought a clause of this kind was required. The clause of his hon. Friend differed from that of the Government. He (Mr. Lowther) was not quite an impartial judge of their relative merits; but he preferred the clause in the Bill. His hon. Friend's clause, however suitable for elementary and day schools, was wholly inapplicable to a system of boarding-schools. In the clause of the Bill, as it stood, precautions had been

  1797
  taken that no pupil should be present during religious instruction which his parents and guardians had not actually sanctioned. That would throw the onus on the right quarter. His hon. Friend said there was nothing in the clause to prevent managers from excluding pupils. But what object would they have in doing so? If Roman Catholic managers were so anxious to proselytize as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to apprehend, surely they would admit with welcome as many as they could of a different religion from their own? Besides, on the principle of the more the merrier, the managers would wish to have as many boys as possible in order to earn more by result fees. Every inducement, indeed, was offered to them to give a good secular education to all comers. The utmost precautions were taken that inspections should be held at the discretion of the Board, and every facility was offered in the Bill for the Boards acquainting themselves by personal inspection with the manner in which the measure would be carried out. He hoped the discussion which had taken place would not be any further prolonged, and that it had convinced the House that it would not be advisable to accept the hon. Member's Amendment, and that it was in every respect less preferable than the clause of the Government as it stood in the Bill.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he was, and always had been, an advocate of secular education. He held that the State had nothing to do with teaching religion, and that all schools—whether primary or secondary, supported either in a large or limited measure by the State—should confine themselves to secular instruction. Imparting the belief of any religious Body in national institutions was, in his judgment, unwise and unfair. But while that was his abstract opinion, he could not disguise from himself the fact, which he was sure was shared by many hon. Gentlemen, that in this case another course had been adopted, and that an attempt was deliberately made to treat Ireland in educational matters with considerable injustice. They had instituted a denominational system of education in England, where the predominating religion was Episcopalian or orthodox Dissent. They had adopted a like system in Scotland, where the belief was Presbyterianism. But in Ireland, where the
  1798
  inhabitants were mainly Catholics, they had adopted a system of secular education. He could not divest himself of the opinion that the difference that was thus instituted between the treatment of Irishmen and the treatment of Scotchmen and Englishmen arose from the fact that the Irish were Catholics and the English Protestants. The reason why Ireland was not dealt with like the other portions of the Empire was an unworthy and unmanly fear of the Papal faith or its upholders. If the Roman Catholic priests were as dangerous to the State as some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches would have them to believe, the very best way, in his judgment, to deprive them of that authority over the people was to treat them with absolute impartiality and complete justice. As long as ever they laboured under the belief that they were dealt with unfairly, they would always have the sympathies of their countrymen with them. If they wished to weaken the influence of the priesthood over the Irish peasantry, they could not do better than grant the Roman Catholic Church every concession that in right it could demand, and which they had now given to their Protestant brethren. On these grounds, therefore —although he saw the force of a good many of the arguments of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) —he would support the Bill as it stood. He did not approve of Conscience Clauses under all circumstances. It was an undignified thing to ask a parent to define the faith of his children. He would rather that no such restrictions existed; but if they were to be enforced, the one embodied in the Bill was just as good, and, in his opinion, better, than the Amendment. They should always recollect the education, the traditions, and the circumstances of the country they were legislating for. They might not like the Irishmen to be Catholics, but they were Catholics. They had to deal with that fact; and being Catholics, they would refuse to avail themselves of the concession that was now proposed to be made to them, if it was clogged with the condition suggested by the hon. Member for Londonderry. To make a present to a man, and to load it with qualifications to which the recipient conscientiously objected, was to give him nothing at all. It was a species of mockery. The Catholics would accept

  1799
  the Bill as it stood; but they would not accept it if the clause now submitted was embodied in it. While, therefore, a strenuous advocate of a secular system for all parts of the United Kingdom, he could not do otherwise than vote against the Amendment; because, to support it, would really be to deprive the Bill of any value that it possessed. It was intended as a message of peace and goodwill to the Irish people, and as such he voted for it.
  MR. NEWDEGATEhoped that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had convinced the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) that the denominational system, which the Bill was intended to establish in Ireland, was of a far more exclusive character than that which prevailed either in Scotland or England. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford had said that because they had not succeeded in establishing a purely secular system in England, therefore he should vote against the only means presented to the House by which a more stringently denominational system than the hon. and learned Member for Limerick advocated could be avoided in Ireland. Believing, as he did, that the clause proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) would effect that object he (Mr. Newdegate) should vote for it.
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS, after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), thought himself entitled to say a few words. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick had taken the liberty of saying that his (Mr. Charles Lewis's) Amendment was framed on a false and bigoted view of the action of Catholic teaching in Ireland. He had long been an admirer of the hon. and learned Gentleman; he had admired his character and his ability, and he had imbibed his principles. Many a time he had attended public meetings in the Freemasons' Hall, which the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed. He had admired the oratory of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and if he imbibed of the spirit of which the hon. and learned Gentleman now called bigoted, if he drank too deeply of the spring that had always been copious, though not always the same, it was hardly fair for the hon. and learned Gentleman to enter into the
  1800
  statements about the bigoted Amendments. He challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman to refer to the speech he (Mr. Charles Lewis) made on the second reading of the Bill, and to say that his action throughout had not been consistent; whether he had not argued that it was unfair to set up one class of religionists against another, but that all should be placed on an equal footing? Therefore, when the hon. and learned Member said that he had formed a false and bigoted view of the Catholic system, it passed by him and affected him not, and if anyone was the cause of it, it was the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. What was complained of was that, whereas the National School system kept the school door open, under inspection, for every denomination, this Bill proceeded in a totally different line, there being not the slightest provision that the school should be open to all classes. It was said that the present system of education in Ireland was denominational. It was denominational in this sense—that if they had a village where there were no Catholics, the school would be Protestant, and vice versâ. According to the Report of the Commissioners in 1877, no less than 56·9 per centage of all the schools in Ireland had a mixed attendance of Catholic and Protestant pupils. In Ulster, where there was a mixed population, the percentage was so high as 76·3; in Catholic Munster there were no less than 800 or 900 schools, with only about three or four Protestant scholars in each school. He did not expect that there would be the slightest discussion made on this subject, but that the union between the Home Rulers and the front Bench would be carried out to the resistance of every Amendment, a union which he hoped would he looked upon with felicity. He should be compelled to take a division on the question of the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 102,: Majority 81.—(Div. List, No. 271.)
  MR. CHARLES LEWISthen moved a clause providing that—
  "Every school whose managers may make claim to any payment under this Act, shall be open at all times to the inspection of Inspectors appointed by the Board, so, however, that it shall be no part of the duties of such Inspector

  1801
  to inquire into any instruction in religious subjects given at such school, or to examine any scholar therein in religious knowledge, or in any religious subject or book."
  The clause was a counterpart of the Conscience Clause in the Education Act. He simply moved it as a protest, and should not divide upon it unless requested by hon. Members.
  New Clause—(Mr. Charles Lewis,)— brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that the subject of inspection was fully discussed in Committee, and that inspection was sufficiently provided for by the Bill as it stood.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that on his side of the House, hon. Members were prepared to support this Inspection Clause, who could not consent to the proposed Conscience Clause.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS, though he had no hope of breaking the phalanx of the Government and the Home Rulers allied against him, felt it his duty to move the insertion of a new clause, as follows:—
  (Day pupils.)
  "No school from which day pupils are excluded shall be allowed to receive any payment under this Act."
  The Amendment had for its object that in those cases where managers of a school thought proper to make a hard-and-fast rule to receive no day scholars, thereby closing their door against any but a particular denomination, then the school should not participate in the benefits of the Act. Of course, he would be told it would be impossible to do that, and that the people of Ireland would not receive such a proposal; but he hoped the House would be disposed to ask for something more than that broad and general denunciation, when he tried to carry out what he believed were the intentions of that legislation— that the greatest facilities should be given to the greatest number to participate in the benefits intended to be given under it.
  New Clause—(Mr. Charles Lewis,)— brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKcould not see how all educational establishments could be put on the same footing as regarded day schools, and debarred from the benefits of the Act, if they found it impossible to take a day scholar. The Amendment would have no effect except to inconvenience the managers of schools in their arrangements. The best educational institutions in Ireland would either be excluded from the benefit of this measure, or they would be obliged to alter their entire management, and considerably lower the standard of their pupils.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)failed to see that such a clause would advance the cause of education. If the managers found it desirable to take a day scholar, no doubt, they would do so; but if the school was a boarding school only, in a country district, for the education of the sons of gentlemen, it would be unreasonable to refuse that school a participation in the benefits of the Act unless day scholars were admitted from the rural district, where the class might be entirely different. If it was desirable to prescribe to schools in towns that they should receive day scholars, then, under the Act, the Board would have power to enact some provision to meet the case, in which it would be undesirable to lay down a broad maxim of this kind.
  Question put, and negatived.
  On the Motion of Mr. J. LOWTHER, the following Amendments were made:—
  In Clause 2, page 1, line 17, after "year," insert "if any casual vacancy occurs in the office of chairman or vice-chairman, the Board shall, at a special meeting to be held not sooner than one month after the occurrence of such vacancy, choose some member of the Board to fill such vacancy, and the chairman or vice-chairman so elected shall continue in office so long only as the person in whose place he is so elected would have been entitled to continue if such vacancy had not occurred;
  Clause 3, page 1, line 27, after "appoint," insert "such examiners, for such terms as the Board shall fix, and;"
  Clause 4, page 2, line 5, after "the," insert "examiners and."
  Clause 5 (Functions of Board).
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS (for Mr. NEWDEGATE)moved to omit Sub-section 3. This was the first Amendment which would be necessary in order to strike out the result fees, which constituted a part of the scheme of endowment provided by the Bill.
  MR. M'LARENseconded the Amendment. He looked at it entirely as a question as to what were the best means of disposing of the £30,000 a-year. He most sincerely thought that the plan of giving to the managers of the schools result fees, the amount of which might have been given to pupils in another form, was a wrong plan. It was unjust to the pupils, and would impede rather than promote education. If the funds so proposed to be distributed were devoted to prizes or exhibitions, then a larger number of pupils would be rewarded, who would by the section, as it stood, be excluded. He should on this matter cordially divide with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, although he had felt bound to vote with the majority in the last division.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, to leave out from the word "students," to the word "students," in line 19, inclusive.—(Mr. Charles Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the House had already distinctly expressed an opinion that encouragement should be given to teachers and managers, as well as pupils. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) had done enough to save his credit among the community, showing his views and it was to be hoped a division would not be necessary. If, however, one was to be taken, the House had better dispose of the Amendment as soon as possible. He should vote against it.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he had to thank the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) for proposing, during his temporary and accidental absence from the House, the Amendment, the Notice for which stood in his name. That Amendment, as he had already indicated to the House, was to this effect. The Bill contained two principles; one was the principle of the direct payment
  1804
  to scholars of prizes for successful examinations, which was the principle on which the Queen's Colleges were founded; the other principle was the principle of the former Maynooth Grants, now abandoned. The College of Maynooth was originally founded at a time when the Papacy appeared extremely liberal. The First Napoleon, as the exponent of the principles of the first French Revolution, had overturned the Papacy, and deprived the Pope of his temporal dominions. The education of France having been, for a long period previous to the first French Revolution, under the direction of the Jesuits and Ultramontanes, who had worked the Monarchy and the aristocracy of France into the form that they preferred, the result throughout that country became—that the tyranny of their Government became so oppressive that the nation rose, and, after perpetrating, he was sorry to say, very gross excesses, abrogated the ancien régime and destroyed a system of government they could no longer endure. This country, alarmed by the outrages which were committed, and the danger to life and property which that Revolution entailed, made common cause with other European Powers, against the subversive principles of the Revolution. The Pope, having been deprived of his temporal Sovereignty in Italy, as he is now, became, under the necessity of the case, to all appearances, exceedingly liberal. The Papacy professed, through its organs in this country, doctrines more liberal even than the doctrines of the old Gallican Church, and the Pope and his agents seemed to renounce the extreme opinions, which had now been re-adopted by the Papacy, and affirmed by the Papal Council of 1870. At that time, when the College of Maynooth was founded, there existed a deficiency of education in Ireland; and the Irish House of Commons voted money for the establishment of the College of Maynooth, not exclusively, however, for the education of Roman Catholic priests, but also for that of the Roman Catholic laity of Ireland. Time went on. This was done, the House would observe, by the Irish Parliament, and during the existence of that Parliament, he must admit that it kept Maynooth very much within the bounds of moderation. At the time of the Union, this House conceived that it had inherited, as a matter of honour,

  1805
  the duty of providing means, by annual Votes, for the sustentation of Maynooth. But there came a change over the spirit of the Papacy. When peace was restored, in 1814, the Pope, as a mark of his gratitude to the Protestant countries which had re-established him in possession of his temporal dominions in Italy, proceeded at once to re-establish the Order of Jesuits. Some of the Professors at Maynooth, especially Professor Kenny, being connected with the Jesuits, left Maynooth, and at Clongowes, not far from Maynooth, established a strictly Jesuit seminary.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House, I must remind the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, is engaged in considering the 3rd sub-section of the 5th clause of the Bill, and I am at a loss to understand how the observations of the hon. Member apply to that subject.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsubmitted that his observations would be found to have a direct application to the question at issue. It was clear, from the Report of the Commission on Primary Education appointed in 1868, that a great part of the payments by results under this Bill would be made to schools, possessed and conducted by the Monastic and Conventual Orders of the Church of Borne, and any hon. Member of the House who chose to read the Blue Books which contained the evidence and Report of that Commission would find that there had been great difficulty in accommodating grants for primary education to the requirements of those institutions. Those institutions were similar to the College of Maynooth, as it now existed, a distinctly denominational establishment, provided for, in great measure, by a sum which this House had voted in order to terminate its connection with that establishment.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK: I rise to Order, Sir. This is not the Question before the House. It seems to me that nobody but the hon. Member himself can see the application of his arguments to the matter at issue.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House is now considering an Amendment to Sub-section 3 of the 5th clause; and I confess that, at present, I do not see the connection between the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and that Amendment. At the same time, I do not wish to interrupt him, if he thinks that he can establish
  1806
  the relevancy of his remarks to the Question before the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would establish the relevancy of his remarks, if he might be permitted to do so. It was distinctly in evidence, and had been admitted in debate, that many of the Roman Catholic schools to whom it was now proposed to grant money as the result of the successful examination of their pupils, were exactly in the same position as the College of Maynooth, after the House had decided upon dissolving its connection with that institution. He held that all the reasons which had induced the House to sever its connection with Maynooth, to give up the attempt to inspect the educational discipline of Maynooth College, to separate itself entirely from the form of education conducted there, were involved in the Question before the House. There were Commissioners in the case of Maynooth; but it was found practically there was no power of inspection—the inspection was so futile that Parliament gave it up. He (Mr. Newdegate) saw, and he condemned in the Bill on the Table, this proposal to adopt that principle of connection with the system of education conducted in these Monastic and Conventual institutions — institutions which were analogous to the College of Maynooth. He supported the Amendment, therefore, because he considered that—["Oh, oh!"]—he knew that this was a sore subject with the Home Rule Members opposite, who would prefer that there should be no inspection, or seemed to rely upon its becoming futile. He (Mr. Newdegate) would, on the contrary, vote for the Amendment; because its effect would be that, instead of making those payments to the directors and managers of those Monastic and Conventual institutions, of which there were at least 50 in Ireland, which involved the necessity of a pretended inspection, the payments would be made upon the same principle as the payment of prizes was made in the Queen's Colleges—in other words, the payments would be made directly to the successful examinees or their parents. That principle had been found consistent with the national system of education in Ireland, and which Parliament had maintained, while it had abandoned its connection with Maynooth, where the other principle—the principle of State connection with the

  1807
  management of these Roman Catholic institutions—had been in force. The proposal before the House, made by the Government—and he lamented that they had made it—was to establish a connection with these exclusively Roman Catholic Monastic and Conventual institutions exactly upon the same principle as that by which the State had formerly been connected with Maynooth. The difference was that the payment to those institutions would only be made on the production of successful examiners, instead of by a yearly allowance. He was surprised that hon. Members from Ireland should appear to be so utterly ignorant of the investigations and Report of the Commission of 1868. He held in his hand the Report of that Commission, and it referred to this payment by results without any very strict and therefore efficient system of inspection. The Commissioners suggested the adoption of a modified Conscience Clause as the only way by which it was possible for them to make payments to the primary schools, conducted by those Monastic and Conventual institutions. This gave force to what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, as to the objections of the managers of these institutions to inspection; but if public money were to be granted to the managers of these institutions, some sort of inspection was inevitable. The Commissioners of 1868 admitted, in their Report, that in Conventual schools a Conscience Clause was a mere embarrassment to the managers, while it could not afford real security or protection to the pupils; yet hon. Members advocated a Conscience Clause, proposed by the Government, in a form which the evidence taken under the Commission of 1868 showed would be a mere embarrassment to those Monastic and Conventual institutions and their managers, and could scarcely be of any avail to the pupils. When a Conscience Clause, modelled on the principle of the Conscience Clause operating in England and Scotland, was proposed by the hon. Member for Londonderry, it was rejected; the decision of the House, pronounced by a large majority, was totally inconsistent with the evidence given before the Commission of 1868, so far as the contemplated effect upon these Conventual and Monastic schools. He thought, then, he had established some
  1808
  connection between the facts he had adduced, and the arguments he had drawn from them. Hon. Members opposite, who professed Liberalism in this matter, sought to reconcile themselves to avoiding their principles by a determination to ignore the nature, the characteristics, and the discipline of these schools connected with the Monastic and Conventual institutions, which they were about virtually to endow—in fact, they seemed to have determined upon ignoring the leading facts of the subject with which they were dealing. For himself, he went upon this broad principle—that this State of England was a Protestant State, and was bound to the great principle of toleration; and he held that it was more consistent with the principle of toleration, when they did not profess to teach religion, and debarred themselves from meddling with religious education, that they should be stern in their adherence to respect for parental right. The best way to secure parental right in this case was to pay the school prizes directly to the successful pupil or his parent; thus leaving unfettered and uninterrupted the power of the parent to regulate the relations of the pupil with the school in which he was educated. That was the most tolerant principle; and when the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) confessed that these schools, in many instances connected with Monastic and Conventual institutions, were of such a nature that they would not admit practical inspection, and that a Conscience Clause was to the managers of those schools a mere futile embarrassment; when the hon. and learned Member argued thus, he (Mr. Newdegate) asked the House to steer clear of all the difficulties manifestly inseparable from interference with the management of these schools, and to rest its confidence as to the method of education upon parental right, and not to connect itself, however indirectly, with the discipline and management of institutions which the law still declared to be illegal. That seemed to him the simple solution of the matter, and strictly in accordance with the first principle of the Bill. The first principle of the Bill was that the rewards or prizes should be given for successful examinations in such subjects as were comprised in what was termed " intermediate education." Then let

  1809
  the House adhere simply to that principle. It was absurd to suppose that the inspection of these Monastic and Conventual institutions would be a reality, when it was known that they would not submit to inspection, if it were rendered practical. He had in his hand the evidence which was given by some of the Christian Brothers before the Commissioners of 1868, and, with the permission of the House, he would read what some of them said—
  "Brother Grace, the acting Director of the Richmond Street Schools, Dublin, objects to the examination and classification of the Brothers."
  Professor Sullivan put this question—
  "9,698. Professor Sullivan—With respect to the general question, would there be any objection to the examination and classification of your body by any external authority? Brother Grace answers—I would never submit to such a process. It would not become us as a religious body; our training is such as we consider quite equal to any we could get outside. We have the training and classification in our own hand, and I don't see why external parties should seek to come and decide upon that which we have already settled."
  That was the spirit with which the House had to deal. Again, Brother Grace was asked by Professor Sullivan—
  "9,700. Then, if afterwards it was found possible to connect your schools to the Government, so as to receive Government aid, would you forego the advantages of payment by classification, and rest satisfied with payment for results alone?—I would sooner submit to an injustice than allow the members of our body, who are religious men, trained and brought up for years to our method of teaching, to be submitted for examination and classification to an external body."
  Now, all that showed that the House did wisely, when it ceased its connection with, and its pretended supervision of, the College of Maynooth. But what were they doing now? They were proposing to revert to that which experience condemned—the attempt to establish educational supervision over Monastic and Conventual institutions in 50 cases. He thought that at length hon. Members were beginning to see the relation of his argument to the Question immediately before the House. Hon. Members seemed determined, if possible, to pass the Bill without its effect being known by the country. Her Majesty's Government, in order to carry the Bill, had cleared the House of their oldest
  1810
  supporters, as was apparent by their absence. The front Opposition Bench was positively empty! Why was that the case? Because right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite knew perfectly well that the same objections which had existed for years to Governmental connection with the Roman Catholic institutions, which had for years prevailed against the Maynooth Grant, continued strong and rife among the English and Scotch constituencies; many hon. Members, therefore, sought to be excused from voting on this occasion. The House might thus be cleared, and at the end of the Session a connection between the State and these Monastic and Conventual institutions might be instituted, to which the people of England and Scotland and the Protestants of Ireland had always objected; the House might thus depart from the great principle upon which the system of primary education in Ireland had been established. They might do all this; but he was determined, by dividing the House on the Amendment, that hon. Members present should declare by their votes whether they preferred the connection through these grants between the Legislature and those Monastic and Conventual institutions, to adopting the more tolerant principles upon which the Queen's Colleges were founded. He lamented that any hon. Members of that House appeared to be prepared to vote that they would not leave unchallenged and un-interfered with the right of parents to direct the education of their children, by rejecting the principle that, when they awarded prizes, or provided for prizes being awarded, to successful examinees, the payment should not be made to the successful candidate; that it should not be made to his parent or next of kin, but should be made to the conductors of the school in which the candidate was being educated, thereby involving themselves in a connection to which the great body of the people of England and Scotland had always objected, and to which the Protestants of Ireland also, before they were politically crushed, had always objected; he should regret the decision of the House, if the majority should choose, against the teaching of experience, to incur great difficulties rather than adhere to the simple principle of paying to the examinee the reward of his success, and leaving his parents to

  1811
  settle the method of his education as a matter between themselves and the managers of the schools.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that the question of results fees had been so fully discussed at an earlier stage of the Bill that he did not propose to follow his hon. Friend through the objections he had taken to the measure, seeing that he (the Attorney General for Ireland) considered that the system proposed in regard to payments by results was in the main deserving of their support. The question was hardly looked at in a reasonable way by his hon. Friend. Results fees could be looked at from two points of view. First, suppose there were no results fees to be paid at all, what would be the effect upon the education of the country? Surely, the only boys that would present themselves, or be prepared for examination, would be the ablest and brightest boys in the schools. If, however, they were to be paid, surely, if the masters were able to turn out boys creditably, it was but reasonable that they should be entitled to a moderate amount in the shape of results fees. The most powerful argument for the system was the benefit which would accrue to the average, or what might be called the stupid boy. By offering a powerful incentive, the master was induced to devote his energies on the average boy, so that an examination grant might be obtained, instead of cramming clever boys only. That appeared to him (the Attorney General for Ireland) to be the commonsense way of looking at the question, and on that ground he hoped the House would support the Bill.
  MR. SHAW, as one of the crushed Protestants to whom the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had alluded, had no hesitation in supporting the Bill, which he looked upon as one that would be of exceeding advantage to Ireland, and to Protestants as well as Roman Catholics. Many of the schools in which formerly boys of Protestant parents were educated and prepared for College had disappeared, and he knew that in several places it was in contemplation to set up those schools again; but it would not be possible to do so if the proposal of the Bill as to results fees was rejected. The Bill interfered as little as possible with
  1812
  the prejudices of the country, and he thoroughly approved of it, believing it to be one of those happy thoughts that pleased nearly everyone. There could be little doubt that even the Dissenting community, if they were appealed to, would be found to be in its favour, for the only resolutions that had been carried against the Bill were those of separate Presbyteries and not the whole Body. Indeed, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) seemed to be quite unaware of the fact that the Methodist Body of Ireland, who lately held a meeting in Dublin, refused to pass a vote condemning the Bill. It was conceded on all sides that there was a good case for legislation, and he wished to know what the opponents of the Bill would propose to substitute in its stead? If they brought forward a Bill to cut off the right arms of the whole of the people of Ireland, it would be thought a most monstrous thing; but by denying the opportunities of education, they were stunting the minds of the people. He regarded the measure as an earnest, an honest, and a true effort to promote the cause of education in Ireland, and as time went on he believed it would produce great results.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he wished to point out that the Bill contained no definition of the word "manager," and that no attempt had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to define it. That was the first difficulty. The second difficulty was that there was no inspection except in a very limited sense, and how were they to judge of management without efficient inspection? The moment the system of payment by results was introduced, they lost all control over the schools. The Bill did not make its appearance until April, and it was not brought forward again until the energies of the House were exhausted by a protracted Session, and they saw the extraordinary spectacle of a House, three-fourths of which were Irish Members, who could, if it were competent for them to do so, carry a Motion in favour of Home Rule. No doubt the Bill would be carried, but it would open up the way to endless difficulties. In fact, it was like opening up one of the seals in the Revelations. The simplest way was to cut out this proviso. The real question was, whether the method of pay-

  1813
  ment by results was as convenient and as expedient in the cause of education as it was undeniably novel? In his view, that was certainly not the case; and to a great extent he agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, when he had spoken of the difficulties which would result from the Bill. Was it necessary that all the difficulties attendant on the relations between the State and the schools should be created? There could be no such necessity; and the troubles that would follow might easily be obviated by rewarding the pupils themselves rather than their teachers. That plan would give an equal stimulus to education, and would be in every way preferable to the system that would be established by the Bill.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, constant references had been made to a speech he delivered four years ago, in which it was said that he stated the results fees involved such difficulties that no Ministry would think of introducing them. The position was that when he brought the measure before the House, he was anxious to bring it forward in as simple and inviting a manner as possible. There was not the slightest foundation for the argument that results fees involved concurrent endowment, that private venture schools in the Irish towns had gone out of existence, and that they would be resuscitated by results fees. The results fees constituted the most important and the most necessary part of this Bill, if teachers were to pay fair attention to ordinary pupils, instead of concentrating their attention on those likely to earn prizes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had endangered the passing of the Bill by countenancing the opposition to results fees; but his absence indicated that he had changed his opinion, and had made a second mistake in connection with Irish education. Not a penny of the results fees would go to the funds of religious Bodies, some of whom conducted schools at a loss; but they would be expended upon libraries, or other means of improving the general education. They tolerated denominationalism in elementary schools, for the schools were Protestant or Catholic according as the majority of the population were one or the other; and the protest against it in intermediate education could come only from the deter-
  1814
  mined foes of middle-class schools in Ireland.
  MAJOR NOLANpointed out that the question had been fairly argued in Committee, and that result fees were paid at the primary education schools. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), he must say the Irish Members present, all told, were 49; and it did not require to be a Second Wrangler to know that 49 were not three-fourths of 129. He contended that because some £3 or £4 a-year should be paid to the managers of schools, instead of to the boys, it would not create that plague and pestilence all over Ireland which some hon. Members seemed to imagine would be the case.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 24: Majority 86.—(Div. List, No. 272.)
  MR. SULLIVANclaimed the indulgence of the House while he stated that inadvertently he had voted with the minority. He had been writing in the Library, and when he entered the House he did not hear the Question put, and through mistaken information he went into the wrong Lobby. He wished to know whether any alteration could be made in the record?
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was in a similar predicament. He had not a particle of sympathy with the objects of the minority.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was no mode by which the record of the vote could be altered. Both the hon. Members having been in the House when the Question was put, the result of their votes must be recorded as they were given.
  Clause 6 (Rules to be made by Board).
  MR. CHARLES LEWISmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 32, after "examination," to add—
  "And for payment of the necessary expenses of juveniles and subsistence of students to, from, and at the place of examination."
  The Amendment was intended to provide for the encouragement and assistance of poor scholars.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 32, after the word "examination," to add the words "and for payment of

  1815
  the necessary expenses of journeys and subsistence of students to, from, and at the place of examination."—(Mr. Charles Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. J. LOWTHERopposed the Amendment. It would open up a source of unlimited expense.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COURTNEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 33, to omit the words "as far as conveniently may be." The object of the Amendment was as far as possible to prevent the Board of Commissioners from making any Order giving boys any advantage over girls in regard to the benefit of the Bill. He believed that as the Bill stood originally, and before those words were inserted, boys and girls stood on the same footing; but those words seemed to suggest that the girls were to wait until the boys were fully provided for. That ought not to be the case. The two sexes should be placed on a footing of perfect equality, and it was principally to elicit from the Government a declaration that that was their intention that he had moved the Amendment. It was said that there was not sufficient money to provide adequately for both boys and. girls, and that it was not desirable to limit the assistance to be given to boys. But he believed that that idea was founded on a misconception. He did not think more than 2,000 boys would pass in three subjects, and obtain pass certificates, &c. At the most, those boys could not obtain more than £100,000 in result fees for their schools. Then, calculating that it might be assumed no more than £8,000 a-year would be required for exhibitions, that made £18,000 to be given to boys. Then, taking the extravagant estimate of £10,000 a-year for management, that would make £28,000, leaving £7,000 for the girls; but he did not believe that anything like that expenditure on boys could take place without a reduction of the standard of examination beyond any reasonable level. If that were so, there would be a still larger sum disposable for girls. Girls were admitted to the local examinations set on foot by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge with this result —that the number of girls competing in the senior class was greater than that of
  1816
  the boys, and the same was the case in respect to those who passed with honours. The figures connected with the examination of girls in connection with these examinations were conclusive as to their capacity to stand, and even to succeed, in the same examination as boys. The Queen's University and Trinity College had started examinations for girls precisely the same as for boys, and he had been told that 360 girls had obtained certificates from Trinity College, and 230 from the Queen's University. Why, then, if there was money available, should not girls be examined in the same way and on the same subject as boys? It was said that it was sufficient if young women were instructed in needle-work and cooking. He did not at all undervalue those acquirements in the education of women; but if they were not to be taught anything else, then, logically, it ought to be sufficient to educate boys in merely carpentry and farming. The object in both cases was not to inculcate special technical knowledge, but to develop the mind and the mental capacity. In both cases, the same training was equally applicable, and he should move the Amendment, with a view of eliciting from the Government an assurance that such an application should be made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 33, to leave out the words "as far as conveniently may be."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, when the words were brought forward in Committee, they were approved by the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) and others who took an interest in the education of girls. In fact, with the exception of the hon. Member for Liskeard, all the friends of female education were content with the Bill as it stood. He believed, also, that ladies who had adopted the cause of the higher education of their sex were disposed to acquiesce. The hon. Member for Liskeard, however, was more Loyalist than the King. The words to which the hon. Gentleman objected were not his (Mr. Lowther's); they were taken from the 12th section of another Statute—that relating to English Endowed Schools—in which they had been found to work well

  1817
  and without injustice to girls. "What was intended by the words to which the hon. Gentleman objected was, not that girls should be placed at a disadvantage as compared with boys, but that the Commissioners should make reasonable rules for the examination of girls, and the grant of exhibitions to them.
  MR. HOPWOODsupported the Amendment, the principle of which was to deprive the Commissioners of anything like an option in the matter, and to impose it upon them as a duty to make provision for the education of girls. The words proposed to be left out might be applicable enough in a measure dealing with old endowments; but were altogether inapplicable to a measure which proposed to establish new endowments, forming, as they did, an unworthy condition, tending in the direction of restricting female education.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that the cry for intermediate education which had arisen in Ireland, had no reference whatever to girls. The complaint was that the education of young men, who had to bear the brunt and battle of life, and whose education in that respect was of more importance than the education of girls, ought to have provision made for it. When this Bill passed the House of Lords, there was not the slightest intention of providing for the education of girls. ["No, no!"] Whoever said "No" had paid very little attention to the passing of the Bill. The meaning of the Amendment was to place the education of girls and of boys on precisely the same footing; but if that duty were imposed on the Commissioners, they would be involved in very difficult questions. There were some hon. Members in that House who were too fond of assuming that public opinion was always on their side, and in favour of every crotchet they took up—and he could assure the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), who, perhaps, knew less of public opinion in Ireland than he did, that there was no desire in that country to spend money in order to give exactly the same class of education to girls as to boys. The question of girls' education might be made the subject of a distinct Bill, to be considered next Session; but the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard would destroy the real use of the present measure. There was a strong ob-
  1818
  jection to raising questions of this nature at that late stage of the Bill, and he hoped that the Government would not give way upon the point, but would adhere to the Bill as it stood, leaving the Commissioners to exercise their discretion in the matter.
  MR. HERSCHELLdenied that the Lords had passed the Bill with the clear understanding that it was not to apply to the education of girls. On the contrary, when Earl Granville was about to propose an Amendment in that direction, he was assured by the Lord Chancellor that the Bill as it stood might be applied by the Board equally to the education of girls as to that of boys. He had the very best authority for that statement.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISprotested against the charge that had been brought against those who objected to the Bill as it stood, that they were resorting to obstruction to get rid of it. When that measure, of the greatest public importance, was being discussed, the front Opposition Bench was entirely empty; and therefore it was the duty of those who opposed the Bill as it stood to do their best to enforce their views on the matter, without succumbing to the terrorism which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had resorted to. Everyone knew that the hon. and learned Member was one of the fathers of the Bill, and that the whole thing had been settled between him and Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. BUTTdenied that he had resorted to terrorism, and stated that he represented no views on this question but his own and those of the Irish people. All he had done was to enter his protest against Amendments of this nature being introduced into the Bill at that late stage instead of in Committee, and thus endangering the measure.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENwas rather astonished at this display of warm enthusiasm on the part of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis). He had promised that if the opportunity afforded, he would do what he could to support the claims of women in this matter; but he could not support little Amendments of this character, which might have the effect of imperilling the Bill, and which would never have been introduced as questions of principle if they had not been intended to interfere with the measure now that the House

  1819
  was within four days of the close of the Session. Power ought to be given to teach women in Ireland especially music and drawing, for which they had the greatest capacity, and thus to enable them to earn a livelihood. He would support any proposition to secure that object. He trusted an opportunity would be given in a future Session to amend the Bill in that respect.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsuggested that, as the words in question were unnecessary, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should consent to omit them. In his opinion, that might be done without materially affecting the Bill, and he believed it would carry out the object of the Government more completely to do so.
  MR. FAWCETTdid not think that anyone would accuse him of desiring to hinder the passing of the Bill; but he was bound to say he was inclined to think that if any hon. Member of the House had done more than another to effect that purpose, that Member was the hon. and learned Gentleman who represented Limerick (Mr. Butt). That hon. and learned Gentleman ought to know the House sufficiently well to be aware that of all the expedients which could possibly be adopted to interfere with the progress of a Bill, none was so likely to succeed as the unfortunate tone which he had taken of assuming that every person who desired to amend a particular measure was in reality an enemy to it in disguise. Those who were endeavouring to make the present Bill as good a Bill as possible were in no degree responsible for its being considered on Report on the 12th of August. But there was no decreed necessity why the House should rise on any particular day; and they were bound to consider carefully every part of the measure, though the 12th of August had been reached. The Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) raised a question of undoubted importance, and that Amendment he supported. He did not say that in administering for educational purposes the funds of the disendowed Church of Ireland the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill should lay down any hard-and-fast line declaring that women must be educated exactly in the same way as men, and pass exactly the same examinations as men; but he did say the Commissioners ought
  1820
  to bear in mind that they were just as much bound to look after the education of the women of Ireland as they were to attend to the education of the men of that country. Those funds were as much the property of the women as of the men of Ireland, and he contended that in their administration there should be no distinction of sex.
  Question put.
  The House divided: — Ayes 123; Noes 32: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 273.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 5, at end, to add—
  "No candidate shall be allowed to obtain a pass, nor be awarded any exhibition, prize, or certificate at any examination under this Act, unless he satisfies the examiners that he possesses an adequate knowledge of one at least of the first, second, or fourth divisions of the subjects mentioned in the Schedule of this Act."
  THE O'CONOR DONhoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would fully explain the meaning of his Amendment, because it raised a very important question. Under the first division, it was proposed to include the ancient languages of Greece and Rome, and also, if the Board thought fit, the Celtic language. What he required to know was, whether it was intended that the Board should have the power, under the Amendments which would come on subsequently, to place the Celtic language on exactly the same footing as Greek and Latin; whether it was intended that the passing in the Celtic language would apply to conditions? He now proposed that the candidates must obtain a pass in a subject under the 1st section.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he had placed on the Paper an. Amendment which was somewhat similar in character to the right hon. Gentleman's. Ireland had, even in remote ages, the highest reputation for its scholarsaip—so great a name had one of her scholars—Scotus —on the Continent, that it used to be said at Salamanca—" Qui scit Scotum, scit totum." He was not disposed to allow that scholastic reputation to be lowered by the provisions of the Bill, and it was, therefore, that he embodied in an Amendment the making a condition precedent to obtaining a prize a knowledge of either Greek, Latin, or mathematics.

  1821
  The right hon. Gentleman proposed to make it imperative that the students should not only have a knowledge of Greek and Latin and mathematics, but that they should also possess a knowledge of the Celtic language, of Irish history, and of English history. Now, the Celtic language was, for all material purposes, except so far as regarded its connection with theology and ancient history, as much a dead language as Latin and Greek. ["No, no!"] He would ask any hon. Member to tell him whether a shopkeeper or farmer was likely to send his son to learn the Celtic language, at a cost of £60 a-year, when he had the opportunity of learning French and German, which would be so much more useful to him in after-life; and did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that in any of the 32 counties of Ireland, except in portions of Mayo, Kerry, and Galway, shopkeepers would send their sons to learn the Celtic language for the purpose of obtaining prizes? He remembered in 1846–7, in some parts of Ireland—Mayo, for instance—the Celtic language was generally spoken; but being in the same district 20 years after, he found a knowledge of the ancient language confined to the oldest inhabitants. He need not say the last thing he would attempt would be to discredit the Celtic language or literature. His name would save him from such an imputation; but the question must be looked at practically, and it would be a farce to suppose that in this utilitarian age parents would pay for education not likely to be useful to their sons in official or commercial life. To say that the Bill would result in boys learning the Celtic language was a delusion, and he was sick of delusions. The knowledge of mathematics, Greek, and Latin, however, was necessary to true scholarship.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the particular Amendment suggested by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was really a very small matter, which ought not to give rise to much discussion. It was suggested to his right hon. Friend that as many more people knew Latin than knew Greek, those two languages should be placed in separate divisions, while the claims of Celtic should be recognized in the curriculum. His right horn Friend, therefore, pro-
  1822
  posed to add to the language, literature, and history of Rome, the Celtic language, literature, and history. Thus, in his opinion, the claim of the Irish, language would be fairly recognized.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, the hon. Baronet (Sir Patrick O'Brien) had made an attack on the Celtic language. [Sir PATRICK O'BRIEN: No!] He, and those who agreed with him, had made no exaggerated claim for the Irish language and literature, and he agreed with the hon. Baronet that it might not be of so much importance as Latin or Greek; but the Irish people still spoke it, and that was an argument in favour of teaching it. More than four-fifths of the people of Mayo spoke it daily, and in the interest of education, it was desirable to hold out such inducements as would lead the people to take advantage of it. The hon. Baronet was the only Member of that House who had attempted to crush the first efforts of Parliament to revive the study of the Celtic language, to which the English people owed so much, and he trusted that the hon. Baronet would find himself in quite an isolated position on a division. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had withdrawn from the engagement he first made with reference to that language, and had now brought forward a proposal for which nobody was prepared. He (Mr. O'Connor Power), however, thought that the Celtic ought to be placed in the same category as the other modern languages, and in that intermediate position after the study of French and German to which it was justly entitled.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENexplained that he had never intended to deride or decry a knowledge of the Celtic literature. He merely alluded to the fact that it was not likely to be made a subject for pass under this Bill.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  MR. E. JENKINSmoved the insertion of words, providing that the Board should define what persons should be deemed to be managers entitled to receive payment of result fees.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 8, after the word "fees," to insert the words "and for defining what persons shall be considered to he managers in order to

  1823
  be entitled to receive payment of result fees."— (Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he was at a loss to understand the purport of the Amendment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, what was intended was that the result fees should be paid to the de facto managers, whoever they might be, and it might well be left to the Board to deal with the question. If a master was his own manager, he would, of course, be entitled to receive the fees.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, that out of respect for the convenience of hon. Members opposite, and also from a desire not to obstruct the Bill unreasonably, he would take the sense of the House upon only one other Amendment. That was to insert words giving powers to the Board to make rules for the inspection of schools the managers of which received any payment under the Act.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 11, after the word "Schedule," to insert the words '' for the inspection of the schools the managers of which receive any payments under this Act."—(Mr. Charles Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member looked at the clause referring to inspection, he would find that the Board had absolute power to accomplish all the objects he had in view. To introduce the words of the Amendment would limit and restrict those powers, and they were, therefore, not only unnecessary, but might be injurious.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 119: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 274.)
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 18, to leave out the words "within forty days after the same shall have been so laid before it," in order to insert the words
  1824
  "before the end of the Session." The hon. and learned Member said, great powers were given to the Board by the Bill. Amongst other powers, he found that the power was given of making provision to carry out the rules in the Schedule of this Act, and for varying, altering, and amending the rules. That was a legislative power. He had no doubt it was the intention of the Government to give the House a real control over the action of the Board. If that was their intention, he had no doubt they would agree with him that such an intention could not be fairly carried out by the provisions of the Bill as they now appeared, for 40 days was not enough to enable the Legislature to interfere with effect. He proposed that, instead of limiting the rights of Parliament to 40 days, they should be exercised at any time within the Session. He would not detain the House with any further observations, but trusted that the Government would adopt the Amendment, as its object must be identical with theirs.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 18, to leave out from the word "within" to the word "before," inclusive, in order to insert the words "before the end of such Session of."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. J. LOWTHERthought it would be unadvisable to make the Amendment suggested. As the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware, there were precedents for the form which had been adopted. Under these circumstances, he saw no reason to alter the clause as it stood in the Bill.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, his only reason for wishing to add the words was to give Parliament a real control in the matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. J. LOWTHERmoved, as an Amendment, in the Schedule, page 5, line 33, to insert "either separately or together with the Celtic language or literature." He said, that an understanding had been arrived at with the Committee that the Celtic language should be made part of the curriculum.

  1825
  The reason for making the present Amendment was, that the French, German, and Italian languages, literature, and history, formed a class of studies, and it was necessary to add—" either separately or together with the Celtic language or literature"—that was to say, that the Celtic language should not be made a distinct subject by itself.
  THE O'CONOR DONthought that the simplest plan would have been to have placed the Celtic language on the same level with the other languages mentioned in the Schedule. As now proposed, the Celtic language would not be placed on an equality with the others; it was only an addition which might or might not be taken up. It was not quite clear what advantages would be derived from taking it up, and it seemed to him that all that was promised was that a candidate who took up Celtic should not lose any marks for so doing. There was, therefore, no advantage offered for studying the language.
  MR. O'DONNELLobserved, that in the Queen's Colleges, the Celtic language was made so entirely a side study that it really was not included in the general studies. The result was that the Celtic language had ceased to be studied; and he was very much afraid that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would be just as useless in the intermediate education of Ireland as the provision for the study of Celtic in the Queen's Colleges, and that its only effect would be to make Irish a sort of side study, which would not be taken up. He felt assured that the Amendment would not be of the slightest practical effect in promoting the study of Irish, and he could not but think that its passing would only give a purely illusory satisfaction to Irish national sentiment.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwould like to be informed what was the Celtic language? The Celtic language, he believed, was the Gaelic. He came from a part of the country where the Celtic language was used—the Irish, and the "Welsh, and the Gaelic spoken in Scotland, were all Celtic languages.
  MR. PARNELLobserved, that he saw no advantage in the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKERinformed the hon. Member that he had already spoken on the subject before the House.
  MR. PARNELLstated that he merely wished to ask a question.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, there was no such thing as the Celtic language. Many languages came under that head, and, as the Bill stood, it was difficult to know which was meant; though if the Irish language were mentioned, it would be clear. He was sure that no single boy in Ireland would be competent to undergo an examination in the Celtic languages.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAapprehended that all that would be effected by this clause would be to add a subject to the list of studies in which marks could be obtained. The number of marks to be raised for Celtic was not prescribed, and it would be one part of the duty of the Board to fix the particular number of marks that would be given for proficiency in the Celtic language. It would be much better if the language were called Irish, for nothing was more clear than that the Celtic language was sub-divided into several others — the Welsh, the Breton, and the Irish and Scotch dialects. The Irish people were anxious that there should be a certain amount of instruction in the Irish language, and, therefore, he thought that it was right that there should be power to award a certain number of marks for proficiency in it.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERobserved, that after all that had been said on the subject, it would be scarcely right to pass a clause that would be inoperative. The Government should pass a provision that would encourage the study of the Irish language. No Irish Member of the House used the word Celtic in speaking of it; everyone was satisfied with the word Irish, and yet the word Celtic had been introduced by the Government. Their Amendment simply said that a knowledge of Celtic would not be a disqualification; but there was no encouragement to the study of Irish, unless it were in the provision for instruction in the "language, literature, and history of Great Britain and Ireland." He would call the attention of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) to that sentence, and would ask him what would be its effect upon the study of the Irish language? If it did not cover the claim they had put forward, then he should be very much disposed to object to the Amend-

  1827
  ment. It was not desirable that the Bill should be passed in a shape which would be likely to give rise to misunderstanding.
  THE O'CONOR DONdid not think that the clause referred to included the Irish language. The hon. Member for Newry (Mr. W. Whitworth) had distinctly laid it down on the second reading of the Bill that the language of Great Britain and Ireland was the English language.
  Amendment agreed, to.
  MR. COURTNEYproposed, as an Amendment, that students should not be permitted to hold exhibitions amounting to more than £80 per annum; he thought £100, the limit fixed, was excessive.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 37, after the word "endowment," to add the words "when the joint annual value of such scholarships, exhibition, or prizes shall exceed £80."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. J. LOWTHERthought that the limit fixed by the clause was the best.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MELDONsaid, he did not intend to move the Amendment which stood in his name with regard to National School Teachers. The object that he had in view had been attained, and the slur which would have been cast on teachers had been removed.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, all the Amendments to the Bill had been disposed of; and as the Session was now nearly at an end, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a third time.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, that if there were the slightest chance of substantially adding to the number of hon. Members who opposed this Bill at the third reading, he should feel it his duty to object to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman; but he did not desire to throw any factious impediments in the way of Public Business, or to carry his opposition to the Bill to an undue extent. He had done his best to oppose the Bill, and he had failed. He was satisfied, though still protesting
  1828
  against the Bill, that it would be useless to oppose the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 192.]
  (Sir Matthew Ridley).
  INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 192.]

    COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th August], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on the Inclosure Provisional Orders Bill).
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. E. JENKINSmoved that the Order be postponed till after the other Orders of the Day. He wished to protest against the unusual course taken by the Government in putting the second reading of the Appropriation Bill in the place it occupied among the last of the Orders of the Day. The consequence was that it would be impossible for hon. Members who had Motions down before it to enter into discussions upon them. He wished also to protest against the Government trying to carry the Bishoprics Bill through on the back of the Consolidated Fund Bill. The Bishoprics Bill was a very important Bill, and one to which many hon. Members had the strongest objection. It was extremely unusual for the Appropriation Bill not to be placed on the Paper as the first Order of the Day.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONseconded the Amendment. He said, that he had had a Motion on the Paper for some time; but, unfortunately, he had been prevented by other important debates taking precedence of it from bringing it before the House. If he did not bring it forward that evening, he did not see what chance he should have of doing so that Session, and he was particularly desirous that the subject should be brought forward. Those who naturally took a great interest in having his Motion in reference to the death of Mr. C. C. Ogle, The Times Correspondent, properly and fairly discussed, had intrusted him with the duty of bringing it before the House, and he had pledged

    1829
    himself to bring it forward that Session. Unless the Government could promise him another day, he must bring it forward that night.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Order for resuming the Adjourned Debate be postponed till after the other Orders of the Day." — (Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. FAWCETTinquired, whether he was precluded from moving his Amendment?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the House had now before it a Motion. If it were passed, the Bill would go down to the bottom of the Orders of the Day, and when it was called on the hon. Member would be entitled to move his Amendment.
    MR. FAWCETTasked, whether, if the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Jenkins) was not carried, he should be at liberty to move the Resolution he had put down?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that no doubt, in that case, the hon. Member would be precluded from moving it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERhoped that under the circumstances the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) would consent to withdraw his Motion for postponing the Bill, because it would certainly be very unfair and very inconvenient to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) who had had this subject under his consideration for a very long time, and who had got a Notice on the Paper, if he should be precluded from moving it. He was ready to say, in answer to the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson), that he fully recognized the importance of the question the hon. Member wished to bring forward, and he would undertake to place one of the stages of the Appropriation Bill in such a position as would enable the hon. Member to bring it forward when there would be a fair opportunity of having it discussed.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that the hon. Member (Mr. E. Jenkins), in making his Motion, which he hoped would be withdrawn, had not stated that
    1830
    it had been almost invariably the custom of the House to take all the stages of the Appropriation Bill at a very early hour of the evening. He hoped that they were not now making a precedent for the future. He had not wished to interrupt the proceedings of the House at an early hour that evening; but he might now state that he had found that for a good many years the Order for the Appropriation Bill had never been delayed by more than a quarter of an hour or half an hour's debate. Neither in its second reading or Committee stage had it been taken at a later hour than 8 o'clock, and he hoped they were not about to establish a precedent for a different course.
    MR. E. JENKINSconsented to withdraw his Motion.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONbegged to say that he should certainly accept with pleasure the courtesy offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who always treated Gentlemen on that side in the most courteous manner; but he should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would inform him when he should be able to bring his Motion on? There was sometimes a slip twixt the cup and the lip, and he should like to be sure of his opportunity.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, the difficulty in which they were placed was that some little time ago he gave Notice that they would take the Indian Budget as the first Order on Tuesday. If he were to place the Committee on the Appropriation Bill before that Order, he was afraid it would be a breach of faith towards those hon. Gentlemen who wished to deal with that question. "What he proposed to do, therefore, was to place the third reading of the Appropriation Bill as the first Order for Wednesday.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    MR. FAWCETTmoved—
    "That it is inexpedient to proceed with this Bill until evidence has been obtained from disinterested witnesses as to the desirability of sanctioning the proposed inclosures, and until the obstacles which impede the application of the Clauses for the regulation of Commons, contained in the Commons Act of 1876, have been removed by the Commons Regulation Expenses Bill now passing through Parliament."

    1831
    The hon. Member said, he was extremely sorry, at that late hour of the night, to trespass on the attention of the House, and, as he felt it was absolutely impossible to deal with the subject fully, he should reserve the greater part of the observations he had intended to make until the third reading. He could not be in a worse position than he was at that moment, and he would briefly explain to the House what that position was. The Bill proposed to inclose close upon 6,000 acres of land. Out of that 6,000 acres, he had no objection whatever, and he could not conceive that any hon. Member would have any objection whatever, to the inclosure of the greater portion of it—namely, about 4,900 acres. The Bill dealt with land of three classes— first of all, with common field land; secondly, with large open wide fields; and, thirdly, with two large pastures. Now, 4,900 acres of that were common field land, and to the inclosure of that he made no objection whatever. But the difficulty in which both he and the House were placed was that it was impossible to amend those Inclosure Bills. He had carefully considered every course of procedure, and he saw no way of proposing that the common land should be inclosed, and that the rest of the land should not be inclosed; and therefore he was under the necessity, much against his will, of proposing the rejection of the entire Bill. There were two points which he particularly wished to bring before the House. In the first place, he wished to say that no inclosure ought to be sanctioned by the House unless the local inquiry had obtained evidence, not only from those pecuniarily interested in the inquiry, but also from those who could look upon the question from a public point of view. Now, that position of his was clearly marked out by the Commons Act of 1876, which was passed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department; for if anyone would turn to that Act and look at Subsection 6, Clause 11, they would see that the Home Secretary distinctly contemplated that the Assistant Commissioner should not be satisfied with simply obtaining evidence from those who were pecuniarily interested, but that he also thought it desirable to obtain it from those who could take a public view of the question apart from a private and interested view. Now, in this particular
    1832
    case, he wished to bring no charge whatever against the Inclosure Commissioners. It was the first to be dealt with under the Act of 1876, and any omissions which were made in the inquiry, he was quite willing to admit, were not made through intention, but from accident; but still it was most important that the House should show that they were anxious that the Act of 1876 should be carried out strictly in its spirit, and he said that a fundamental principle of that Act would be absolutely disregarded unless the Commissioners took most scrupulous care to secure those public interests. Now, he believed that in that particular inquiry that care was not taken; because, when the Bill was referred to a Select Committee in the preceding year, this—the following —was unanimously their Report. That Committee was presided over by the President of the Local Government Board. The Committee distinctly reported this— "That in future cases, care should be taken to procure disinterested evidence." They could not have a more clear and distinct intimation that in this particular inquiry disinterested evidence was not taken. He would prove that by a second fact. With regard to one group of commons — namely, those of Rutlandshire, there was an inquiry held on the spot, and meetings were held. Who were present at those meetings? At the morning meeting, 18 people were present, and of those, 11 were solicitors and land agents of the large landowners, seven were freeholders, and there was not one single independent person present. At the evening meeting, the only persons present were five solicitors, some of whom were London solicitors who had come down to represent the large landowners. Now, could they possibly conceive a case in which it was more distinctly shown that the Assistant Commissioner should not be satisfied with the evidence taken, but should have given instructions that the evidence of the people of the neighbourhood should be taken? He also wished to call attention to the case of Riccall. At Riccall, 45 people were present, and out of those persons, everyone except five was pecuniarily interested in the inclosure. Of the five persons, three were tenants-at-will holding cottages under the chief person who was interested in that particular inclosure,

    1833
    Therefore, it seemed to him that it was clearly shown that evidence from disinterested persons was not obtained. He did not, of course, mean to throw any suspicion upon anyone; but he did say that it was evidence given by persons who were pecuniarily interested in recommending those inclosures; and he said, therefore, that the House was not in a position to judge properly from the evidence given before the Committee. There was a second point upon which, on the third reading of the Bill, he hoped to speak at greater length, but to which he would now ask the attention of the House. He would put this to the Home Secretary. When the right hon. Gentleman was passing the Commons Act, he again and again stated—and he (Mr. Fawcett) accepted the assertion—that the object of the Bill was to promote the regulation of commons as distinguished from the inclosure of commons. When the Bill was passing through the House, although he admitted that intention, he thought that, as the Bill was drawn, there was very little chance that those regulation clauses would come into operation. The Act had now been working for a couple of years, and what some of them predicted as to the working of the regulation clauses had been abundantly verified. He made this as no charge against the Home Secretary, because, as soon as it was pointed out to him, the right hon. Gentleman lost not a moment's time in introducing a Bill to amend his Commons Act of 1876; and he believed the result of the Bill, which had now passed the House of Lords, would be to give the regulating clauses of the Commons Act of 1876 a chance of being brought into practical operation, such as they would never have had under the Bill as it stood, and that he could explain by a single sentence. If a proposal was made to regulate a common, the whole expense of it, by the Act of 1876, would be thrown upon the lords of the manor and the commoners, and so no wonder they declined to undertake the duty of imposing regulations. But now the regulations would be practically presented to them, for, by the new Bill brought in by the Home Secretary, a certain small portion of every common which was proposed to be regulated could be sold, in order to pay the expenses of the
    1834
    regulation. Consequently, the regulation could be carried out without throwing any cost upon those who were interested in the common, and in that way a great obstacle which stood in the way of the regulation of commons would be removed. Now, he would again put the question to the Home Secretary. He said not a word about the commons to be inclosed, but he asked him to consider the position of the 114 acres of pasture; and, if that were not regulated, he asked, him whether he could possibly imagine the case of any common that would be regulated under that Act. What was the position of that 114 acres of pasture? It was right in the heart of the village. It was largely used by the villagers for the purposes of recreation. He could not conceive of a case in a rural district where they could possibly have a stronger argument in favour of a recreation ground than they had in the case of the 114 acres of pasture in the heart of a village which was largely used by the villagers for the purposes of recreation. It was never represented to them when the inquiry was held that it was possible to inclose the commons and regulate this piece of ground, for very likely if it had been so, there would have been some evidence on the other side. If the Home Secretary would consent to postpone this Bill, and see what the effect of the regulating Bill would be, and if the Assistant Commissioner would go down and say that there was no objection to inclose the common field, but that there was an objection to inclose the pasture and the open heath, he believed that under those circumstances there probably would be no opposition offered to the regulation of the pastures. He therefore desired, by the Resolution he now intended to move, to assert two principles. In the first place, that it was of the utmost importance that in those local inquiries that were held in regard to proposed inclosures, that the Act of 1876 should be faithfully carried out, and that the Assistant Commissioner should not be satisfied with simply taking the evidence of those pecuniarily interested; and, secondly, he felt that if the scheme for regulation had been presented in the way in which it could be presented now that the amending Act of 1877 had been passed, much of the opposition which was now heard against regulation would be removed, and the regulation

    1835
    clauses of the Act of 1876 would have a much better chance of being brought into operation than they had at the present time.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to proceed with this Bill until evidence has been obtained from disinterested witnesses as to the desirability of sanctioning the proposed inclosures, and until the obstacles which impede the application of the Clauses for the regulation of Commons, contained in the Commons Act of 1876, have been removed by the Commons Regulation Expenses Bill now passing through Parliament,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. STEPHEN CAVE, as Chairman of the Commons Committee which had recommended those inclosures, thought it right to say a few words. The hon. Member had made a similar proposition in Committee; but, finding himself in a minority, he had given Notice to oppose in Parliament the Bill which confirmed the Provisional Orders. He was not complaining in the slightest degree that the hon. Member had not acted with perfect fairness from his own point of view. He did not wish to go into the merits of the particular case, because they had been carefully considered last Session by the Committee to which the hon. Member referred. That Committee recommended the inclosures upon certain conditions which had been complied with by the promoters. They also appended to their Report an opinion that in cases of future Provisional Orders evidence of disinterested witnesses should be taken. Now, he confessed that to his mind the old plan of hearing only promoters and opponents was more satisfactory, and more likely to bring about the requisite effects. It was difficult to say what really disinterested evidence was. There might be persons who had no interest whatever in the inclosures, and, therefore, were not technically interested witnesses; but those persons might be actuated by prejudices or by animosity against promoters which might bias their judgment. He recollected that there was a very great feeling about rabbits in the case of one witness who
    1836
    came before the Committee. However that might be, the inclosures had been recommended by the Committee of last year, and it was quite clear that the Resolution was not intended to apply to those particular inclosures. It was, no doubt, the intention of the Committee to pass those inclosures, and to limit the Resolution to future cases. In fact, those particular Provisional Orders would have been passed last year; but, unfortunately, the Bill for carrying them into effect was withdrawn at the end of the Session on account of a technical informality. He thought this need not have been done. As it was, the case came again before their Committee. The informality was corrected, and the conditions were all fulfilled. When the cases were selected, as had been stated by Mr. Caird before the Committee last year, they were selected as being the most deserving, and against which no allegations whatever had been made; and they were, therefore, chosen for the purpose of being submitted to the Committee, as if to see whether any inclosures should be permitted or not. It certainly appeared to him that, if such cases were to be met by conditions more onerous and stringent than the Act itself, they would be doing a very great injustice to the promoters and owners whom they asked to come before them and make applications for inclosures. He sometimes regretted to see inclosures of land anywhere near centres of population; but as long as the law was unrepealed, it was hardly just to meet applications for inclosures in a way that almost amounted to a refusal before hearing. He thought that the proposal the hon. Member for Hackney was making to postpone the Inclosure Bill, which had already been too long delayed, was still harder—namely, in order to wait for the passing of a Bill which was not yet passed, and which, if passed, might not apply to the particular inclosures in question. He did not in the least complain that the hon. Member should have expressed what he felt so keenly; but, at the same time, he thought it would be very unfortunate if the House were to delay any longer the passing of that Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided: — Ayes 66; Noes 22: Majority 44. — (Div. List, No. 275.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered, in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Confirmation of Provisional Orders).
    MR. FAWCETTmoved to omit Riccall from the operation of the Bill.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the proper place for the hon. Member to move his Amendment was on the Schedule of the Bill.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    On Schedule.
    MR. FAWCETTmoved that Riccall he omitted there from. He did so in order to get from the Secretary of State some reason why the portion of the land proposed to be inclosed should not be regulated instead. In Riccall there were 114 acres of pasture land in the heart of the village, which were largely used by the villagers for the purpose of feeding cattle and for recreation. If that land was not to be regulated in the case of Riccall, he would ask the Home Secretary, whether he could suggest any single case in which regulation was the proper course to be taken? He had never yet heard any explanation why the particular portion of land he had mentioned should be inclosed, and not regulated.
    MR. LEEMANtrusted that the Committee would refuse to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Hackney. It had already been, explained to the House by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cave) that this was a Bill for the in-closure of certain spaces, and that it had been practically before Parliament for two years. It would have been supposed from what fell from the hon. Member for Hackney, that there had been some opposition to the Bill outside himself. He (Mr. Leeman) ventured to say, and he thought he could make it clear to the House before he finished his observations, that every possible inquiry had been made into the merits and demerits of this application. There had been a Committee upon the Bill, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, which sat last year for no less than seven days. Before that the Commis-
    1838
    sioners had had the matter advertised, and had called upon persons in the locality, and not a single person had any objection to make to the Bill, so far as Riccall was concerned. The Commissioners not only advertised the proposal, but they called upon all parties in any way interested in the locality to state any objections that could be raised to the Bill. Moreover, meetings were held, first of all in the morning, and afterwards in the evening. Upon that occasion the hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that nobody came to the meetings but those interested in the in-closure; but the whole world was invited by the advertisement to attend, and the advertisement was inserted in the various newspapers in the neighbourhood. It was provided by the Act of 1876 that great care must be taken that everyone should have the fullest opportunity of stating his objections. It was very odd that the hon. Member for Hackney exhibited so great a knowledge of Riccall; he wished the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to favour the House with all the information he possessed with regard to that place.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that he had never mentioned a single fact connected with Riccall, although he had heard many facts connected with it privately; but he never mentioned a single fact that he had not obtained from Blue Books that were before the House, or from evidence that was considered by the Select Committee.
    MR. LEEMANsaid, that the hon. Member himself sat as one of the Committee listening to the evidence which was brought forward. If the hon. Gentleman referred to a Blue Book for the proceeding he was now taking, let him show the Committee that every Member of the Select Committee voted against him, when the subject was before them; and that, by this overwhelming majority, the Committee voted in favour of the particular inclosure now before the House. The Committee made certain stipulations that additional quantities of land should be inserted in the Provisional Orders to what had been originally inserted; but when that was done, every Member of this Committee, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman, voted for the Bill being passed. And why were they not passed last Session? It was simply because technicalities were

    1839
    found to exist, and the Inclosure Commissioners had to withdraw the Bill. But, said the hon. Gentleman, the Committee had passed a Resolution that on all future occasions, the Commissioners should call before them what had been termed disinterested witnesses. But, nevertheless, the Committee had voted that these Bills should be passed through the House. What took place afterwards? After the different owners of property affected to the extent of some 6,000 acres had made the alterations required by the Committee and the Commissioners had made the Provisional Orders required by Act of Parliament, it was necessary that the matter should come for confirmation before the House. There was not a living soul had any idea of opposing the application. No one knew that better than the hon. Member for Hackney, and yet he now sought to exclude Riccall. Months went over, after the Committee came to the resolution mentioned, and the labouring classes in the village of Riccall, which contained some 800 persons, were in expectation of the passing of the Bill. It was proved before the Committee that those were the persons most interested in the inclosure, and those men had been waiting for months in expectation that they would speedily have this Provisional Order as regarded Riccall put in force. But suddenly there turned up in the village of Riccall a man whom no one knew anything at all about. When he arrived, people said—"What are you doing here?" He asked—"Are any of you opposed to this inclosure?" No one was aware of any opposition. Then he said—" I am a gentleman from the 'Anti-Inclosure Suburban Commons Association.' If you listen to me and follow the advice I am about to give you, I shall be able to do you some good." That person—who it turned out afterwards came from London—laid birdlime, into which some persons walked, and he would tell the Committee who they were. They were the men who, in former years, had been owners of cottages in which they lived, and to which commonable rights were attached, which they had sold and got the value of. The agent of the "Anti-Inclosure Suburban Commons Association" induced those persons to believe that he could bring about the regulation of a part of the
    1840
    common, instead of inclosure. He therefore induced those persons to walk into the birdlime he set, and 18 of those persons were dishonest enough to sign a document called a Petition to the House of Commons. The rest of the persons interested thought it was scarcely fair that they should have been paid for their commonable rights, and yet keep the land uninclosed. But, oddly enough, there was a Petition, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney had some knowledge, for he moved before the Committee this year that the resolution to which it had come should not be confirmed until the Assistant Commissioners had been examined as to whether the recommendation of the Committee as to obtaining evidence from disinterested parties had been carried out, and until a certain Petition from Riccall against the inclosure of commons had been considered. The hon. Member was thus aware of that Petition. He (Mr. Leeman) had searched the records of that period, but could not discover the Petition. If that Petition were not produced, upon whose authority was it that the hon. Gentleman was making the statements he now did with regard to Riccall? The hon. Gentleman himself was never in Riccall in his life, so far as he (Mr. Leeman) knew. There were several reasons why the people of Riccall should have wished for this inclosure to take place, and their wish was evident, not withstanding the efforts of the "Anti-Inclosure Suburban Commons Association." The land at Riccall was, to a very great extent, swampy, and the particular 114 acres of pasture to which the hon. Member had alluded was called the "Riccall Dam." The Committee took far greater care of these people's rights than would be done by the Anti-Inclosure Association. When they came to ask for Petitions, they found one presented by about 120 of the labouring population of Riccall, who were conscious that if the inclosure did not take place, the land in question would continue in its present bad state; whereas the inclosure would involve an expense of £15,000 in the reclamation of the land, which would go into the pockets of the labouring population. Did the hon. Member consider what he was doing in preventing that money from being spent for the benefit of the people of Riccall? He (Mr. Leeman) was describing a locality

    1841
    which he knew well, for it was within half-an-hour of his own place, and he stated his deliberate opinion that the inclosure ought to take place. The hon. Member said he did not object to the arable land and common field land being inclosed; but he proposed to stop the Bill for another year, because, upon his own showing only, there happened to be 114 acres of land in Riccall which he did not think should be inclosed. Why was this inclosure asked for with respect to the other land? There were between 600 and 700 acres of land in Riccall held in common between something like 45 owners, each man holding from six perches to about six acres; the land was close to the River Ouse, and required extensive draining. The inclosure was one of which everyone had had notice, and which, but for the hon. Member, would have taken place years ago. The 144 acres was part of the common land, and like the other portion, was low-lying, having a porous surface and a clay sub-soil. It was proved before the Committee by independent witnesses, consisting of the most eminent agriculturists in Yorkshire, that the drainage operations on that common would take three to five years to carry out. Did the hon. Member think that the labouring classes of Riccall considered that he was doing them any good in objecting to this expenditure of £15,000? Rather, he should have thought, that after having done all in his power to oppose the inclosure the hon. Member for Hackney would have been satisfied to have let the Bill pass without keeping hon. Members in town for the purpose of supporting the Bill. The discussion of this subject was a pure waste of time, and he called upon the hon. Member to show the Petition which he had mentioned, and the Committee would then be able to see the value of the objection. The people of Riccall had petitioned the House in favour of the Bill; and he, therefore, with some confidence, opposed the Amendment of the hon. Member.
    MR. FAWCETTobserved, that it was quite impossible for him, at that time of night, to answer the hon. Gentleman's arguments at length. He had no motive for his criticism, except that derived from the impression produced on him when this question came before the Committee. His hon. Friend waxed extremely indignant with him, though
    1842
    he had only spoken from the sincerest motives; but he must remember, when he spoke with such unwonted enthusiasm, that he spoke as a professional advocate. He spoke for the lord of the manor, and he (Mr. Fawcett) spoke from a public point of view. The Petition to which his hon. Friend referred was not drawn up for presentation to the House, but to the Committee. He knew nothing about the Petition; but certain strong allegations were made with regard to it, and he was anxious that they should be sifted. It was proposed that the Petition should be considered by the Committee. He had known the hon. Member too long to object to-night to the strong language he had used; and as he thought he would speak in a different way after further consideration, he (Mr. Fawcett) would postpone further remarks till the third reading.
    MR. SCLATER - BOOTH, speaking with reference to the hon. Member for Hackney's statement that the case of Riccall was one in which it appeared that it would be most convenient that the regulating clause should be applied, assured the Committee that the question of regulation was put to the witnesses over and over again. He was Chairman of the Committee, and all the witnesses agreed that there was no desire to enter into that question; but that inclosure was desired was proved by the promoters, and no objection on the part of any of the inhabitants was urged. These questions came before the Committee not so much promoted by the parties, as by the Inclosure Commissioners, who were responsible for bringing before the Committee the cases which they considered ought to be so brought. He, as Chairman of the Committee, however, was anxious that there should be no question as to the bona fides of the Commissioners, and he caused notice to be given to the inhabitants that a Committee of the House of Commons was to adjudicate in these inclosures, and that any person who had anything to say was invited to give evidence. In his opinion, a most grievous injustice would be done to those interested in the inclosures, if they were not carried out this Session.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    On Question "That the Bill be read the third time To-morrow?"
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked, what would be the order of Business? An unusual number of Bills still remained on the Orders, and nothing had been said as to the probable day of Prorogation. The House would lose a most important opportunity of having grievances brought forward at the close of the Session, if the Appropriation Bill were taken so late, as he feared it was likely to be, at the next Sitting. If, in fixing the Bill now before the House for that day, the Government meant the House to understand that there would be several Bills set down before the Appropriation Bill, a most unusual course would be taken. On Wednesday, when the Appropriation Bill might be the first Order, time was limited, and probably the first Motion would take up the whole day, so that the House would only have the opportunity of bringing forward one grievance. On former occasions there had always been three ample opportunities, at least, of bringing forward grievances on the Appropriation Bill. On one important subject—the attitude of the Porte towards Greece—it was most important that there should be some opportunity for debate. Information had reached him as to the Porte's reception of the directions of the Congress in regard to the Greek frontiers, which convinced him that the subject ought to be considered by the House; but he feared lest there should be no opportunity given for its consideration.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must remind the hon. Baronet that there have been a great many opportunities this Session of bringing forward this question of the treatment of Greece. As to the Order of Business for to-day, we propose to take—first, the Committee on the Indian Budget; then, the Committee on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; then, the third reading of the Bishoprics Bill; then, the Inclosure Bill; and then, the third reading of the Telegraphs Bill. On Wednesday, we put the Appropriation Bill down for third reading; and I should hope that the Prorogation may take
    1844
    place on Friday; but, at all events, not later than Saturday.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONexplained that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had not referred to Greek questions that had already occupied the attention of the House, but to questions raised by the receipt of recent intelligence.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Raikes.)

    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).—RESOLUTION.
    MR. MELDONrose to call attention to the claims of the Irish National Teachers; and to move—
    "That this House, having, with the assent of Her Majesty's Government on the 7th of May last passed a Resolution that the position of the Irish National Teachers called for the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government with a view to a satisfactory adjustment of their claims, this House is of opinion that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to have given effect during the present Session to such Resolution, and to have made proposals to this House for securing with certainty to the Irish National School Teachers the full amount of the result fees to be earned by them in the current year."
    The hon. and learned Member said, it was unprecedented that the Appropriation Bill should be brought forward at such a late hour, and he should not have brought forward his Motion then, were it not that there never was a fitter subject for discussion than the case of great hardship and injustice which he had to present. So far back as the 1st May, he moved that the claims of these teachers called for the immediate attention of the House, with a view to the satisfactory settlement of their claims. The House passed the Resolution, and he thought there was ample ground for saying that it was the duty of the Government to have given effect to such a Resolution of the House. When he added that the gist of the Resolution —namely, its demand on the immediate

    1845
    attention of the Government—had been the subject of discussion between himself and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, and that the Government had assented to the Motion, after he had declined to withdraw the word "immediate," it would appear still more surprising that no steps had yet been taken by the Government. He was one of those who tried to negotiate with the Government before bringing grievances before the House, and he had put himself in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject; but he did not even respond to him. He took no notice of his reasonable demand. He called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to the subject. He was courtesy itself; but he avoided discussing what means ought to be adopted to remove the grievances of the teachers. In two or three words he would now state their case. In 1874, the full justice of the demands of the teachers were admitted. In 1875, the Government proposed a scheme, which they themselves stated was a temporary scheme. They took a Vote of £120,000 towards the payment of two-thirds of the result fees. They said—"We will give you £60,000 unconditionally. We will give you the other £60,000 on condition that the Unions of Ireland provide another £60,000." It was stated in the House that this scheme must necessarily fail, and it was urged by the Government that it would only be temporary. It had wholly failed. Where the Unions did not contribute, and where voluntary subscriptions could not be had, the teachers would actually lose two-thirds of their result fees. There wore many cases of the grossest hardship. What had occurred in the North Union of Dublin? Since 1875, up to the present year, that Union had been contributing, and the teacher3 had received the benefit of the provision which the Government intended for them in 1875. They had been receiving the full amount of their result fees. This year the Union had ceased to be contributory, and these men were, at one sweep, deprived of two-thirds of their earnings. Upwards of £5,000 was lost to the teachers of that Union. There were 10,000 teachers in Ireland, and it was a monstrous thing that, the justice of their demands having been acknowledged
    1846
    in 1875, nothing had yet been done for them. They were now left in the same slough of despondency as before. If he rested his case on these facts alone, it ought to be recognized that they were suffering injustice. But there was the clearest breach of faith; there was no use in putting it in a milder way. The Government having assented to the Resolution, declaring that the subject should have their immediate attention, had done nothing, and not a word was said on the subject when the Irish Education Estimates were before the House. He had pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that large sums voted for these result fees had, in consequence of the failure of the plan of 1875, found their way back into the Exchequer. This year, £20,000 out of the £120,000 had found its way back. Last year, something like £30,000 was returned; and similar sums were returned in the two preceding years. So that £100,000 intended for the teachers had not been paid to them, owing to the imperfection of the scheme. He had suggested to the Government that, as they had done nothing in accordance with the Resolution of the House, they should take £60,000 out of that £100,000, and apply that towards the payment of funds which ought to have been contributed by the Unions. The Government might do that this year, and bring in some scheme for finally settling the subject next year. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not deigned to reply to his communications. He granted that the question of pensions was a difficult one, and he did not intend now to touch upon that; but the question of salaries demanded immediate settlement. He would, therefore, move the Resolution which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, having, with the assent of Her Majesty's Government, on the 7th of May last passed a Resolution that the position of the Irish National Teachers tailed for the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government with a view to a satisfactory adjustment of their claims, this House is of opinion that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to have given effect during the present Session to such Resolution, and to have made proposals to this House for securing with certainty to the Irish National School Teachers the full amount of

    1847
    the result fees to be earned by them in the current year,"—(Mr. Meldon,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. LOWTHER: The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of a breach of faith on the part of the Government. I am sorry that language so strong should come from him; but I feel sure, when he hears what is the actual state of affairs, he will not wish to repeat the language. What took place was this. On the 7th May, the hon. and learned Gentleman, in a speech of great ability and moderation, as I myself took the liberty of observing at the time, brought forward the question of the position of the teachers of National Schools in Ireland. In reply, I called attention to the fact that the Government, in past Sessions, had not been unmindful of the interests of that class. They had introduced the Bill of 1875, to which he has referred, and had founded on it some regulations which I admitted did not lead to the results hoped for. I said, further, that the Government were not disposed to take exception to the Motion proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, provided some verbal Amendments, which I indicated, were acceded to. They were acceded to, and we accepted the Motion. That was a voluntary act on our part, and I do not find fault with the hon. and learned Gentleman for wishing us to carry out that engagement. But what was the nature of the engagement? Without referring to the details of the past debate, I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that what I said was much to this effect—that this matter had been referred to the Treasury, with whom these questions rested, and that it had been found necessary to submit the figures bearing on the subject for an actuarial Report. We hope no long time will elapse before we get that Report. [Mr. MELDON: That refers to the pensions.] The Resolution of the hon. and learned Member referred to the whole subject, and my reply referred to the subject as a whole. I never for a moment dreamt of dealing with the subject this Session, and that was shown by my indication of the probable appropriation of a portion of the surplus of the Irish Church funds.
    1848
    [Mr. MELDON: My Resolution now deals solely with the question of salaries.] That may be, but the whole question of the National School Teachers is under the consideration of the House, and a considerable portion of the last discussion bore on the subject of pensions, and the appropriation of part of the surplus of the Irish Church funds was one of the suggestions entertained by the Government. It was found necessary that the persons who made the Report to which I have referred should have what is called an experience statement drawn up—a table based on averages. [Mr. MELDON: That is with reference to pensions.] Exactly, and my idea is that the subject must be dealt with as a whole. As to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is made in forgetfulness of the fact that the large sums of money to which he refers do not remain with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but are paid back into the Treasury according to law, and can only be given out on a fresh Vote of the House. It is impossible to deal at once with the subject in a comprehensive manner; but I hope, under these circumstances, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that we are studiously endeavouring to carry out our engagement to the House.
    MR. WHITWELLwas sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman turning aside from the question submitted to the House, and endeavouring to divert the attention of the House altogether from the subject of discussion. Pensions had not been referred to by the hon. and learned Member who introduced the subject to the House. He advocated an arrangement for increasing the salaries of teachers; but the subject of pensions for the Irish schoolmasters was a new one to him, and it struck him as extraordinary, if such a subject was to be coupled with an appropriation of Irish Church funds. What the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Meldon) contended was that it was acknowledged by the House that the Irish teachers did not receive as much salary as they ought to receive, and the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been directed to the adjustment of their claims. In the meantime, pending such adjustment, the poor teachers were receiving a mere nothing; it was all very well to wait for another year, but everyone knew that the present income of the

    1849
    teacher in Ireland was utterly insufficient. The mode in which the subject ought to have been dealt with was to have made the scheme compulsory on the Unions, and not merely voluntary. He was extremely sorry that another year must again pass over before the teachers could receive a single farthing in addition to their present miserable salaries.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply to this matter, had dealt only with one branch of the subject brought forward —namely, that of pensions — ignoring the other part of the case put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kildare. It was an attempt to draw attention away from the real ground of complaint, notwithstanding that the hon. and learned Member had written two letters—one to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the other to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in respect of the matter. As the matter at present stood, the Resolution of the House remained nugatory, the Unions of Ireland refusing to contribute anything while the matter was left to their discretion. After an experience of two or three years of this refusal, the teachers were to be allowed to starve, while for four Sessions continual attempts were being made on the part of the Irish Members of every Party to obtain justice for them. The average salary of Irish teachers was only £51 a-year; and it was a great injustice to the men and women employed, and a greater injustice to the scholars, who were being huddled together in the schools under the control of those insufficiently-paid teachers, that they should be reduced to that condition. It was a mistaken system that would leave these men and women, on whom the intellectual life of the Irish nation depended, to be reduced to the half-starved condition in which they now were.
    MR. O'CLERYremarked, that, no doubt, it would be said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and by some other Members of the Government, that unless Ireland contributed in some measure towards the support of the teachers, Irish Members had no right to come to the House and demand that further sums should be voted on their behalf. He thought it had been clearly shown to the House that the system of national education,
    1850
    as it at present existed, had been forced upon Ireland contrary to the wish of the Irish people, and of the Irish clergy and hierarchy. The people were compelled to receive this system of education, and it was hard to expect them to contribute to a system forced upon them against their will. According to law, the school boards were to be elected by the people; but when they found that only about 20 per cent of the population voted in respect of them, it was clear that the people did not agree with the system of education. If the Government would force upon the Irish nation a system of education, it was perfectly clear that if the teachers were underpaid, the Government could not refuse to make up their salaries. Therefore, there was no right to expect that these teachers, forced by the system of education upon the Irish people, were to be maintained by them. At the same time, it was absurd to expect that the National School Teachers of Ireland would continue year after year to discharge their duties faithfully, unless justice was done to them by the Government. Ten thousand teachers were now placed in the unworthy position of the Government receiving their services and insufficiently paying them. The Irish people had reason to hope that when the Intermediate Education Bill was passed, something would have been done to place the teachers in a position to exist, and to enable them properly to discharge their duties.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished, in the first place, to express his regret that the hon. and learned Member should have written a letter to him, which he did not acknowledge. He had some recollection of a letter coming to him, and of sending it to another Department, he himself not knowing what had been done in the matter. He was really very sorry that the letter had neither been acknowledged nor answered; but he could assure the hon. and learned. Gentleman that it was from no want of courtesy on his part. He was under the impression that he spoke to his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on the matter; and it was also his impression that the Chief Secretary informed him that he had attended to it.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that the answer he got was simply a mere acknowledgment of the receipt of his letter.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERwas extremely sorry that there had been anything like a want of courtesy; but he must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to remember that, in the multiplicity of matters to which he had to attend, he might occasionally forget something. But the much more material point was as to the justice of the complaint which the hon. and learned Gentleman made with regard to the conduct of the Government. He wished to remind him and the House of the position in which the Irish National School Teachers were, and of the different questions which, at different times, had been brought forward in respect of them. One point was with reference to their residences; another was as to the salaries of the teachers; and a third with regard to their pensions. As respected residences, he believed that that question had been practically settled; with regard to the salaries, the experiment was made two years ago by his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), of dealing with the matter in such a way as would involve a certain amount of local contribution in aid of the Imperial grant. The Government were then of opinion, and still thought, that that was the proper proposal to make, and one in accordance with what was done in this country. Undoubtedly, to a certain extent, that proposal might be said to have failed. Why? Because there was a failure in the local contributions that were expected and hoped for. Contributions were made in some Unions; but in others, and the larger class of cases, no contributions were made, and the teachers were the sufferers. He did not know to what extent they went; but the proposals of the hon. and learned Gentleman now were in entire subversion of the scheme of the Government. It was proposed by the Government that if localities would contribute certain sums, the Imperial Exchequer would grant a like sum. Some Unions did contribute, and the State, accordingly, granted a like amount; and the hon. and learned Gentleman said, with regard to these cases, that he would leave them alone. But, undoubtedly, it would be hard upon the Unions that had contributed, if the other Unions were placed in a like situation, without any
    1852
    contribution. It would be placing those that did not contribute on a level with those that did. With regard to the third question—that of pensions—it was a point upon which it had always been admitted that something ought to be done, and a scheme in respect to the matter was before the Government, and would be carefully considered. It was in regard to pensions that the Government admitted something ought immediately to be done, and that immediate attention should be given. It was unnecessary that he should refer in detail to the debate that took place on the 7th of May. His right hon. Friend then stated very little. What he said as regarded salaries was that the first class of teachers were in receipt of sums amounting to £2 a-week; the second class to £1 10 s. a-week, and the third to £1. He was not aware that in the speech of his right hon. Friend, or in any other speech on behalf of the Government, consideration was promised to the question of raising salaries; but undoubtedly, as regarded pensions, a promise was given, and the Government were prepared to fulfil that promise.
    MR. MELDONsaid, he understood that, in the debate of the 7th of May, a promise was made by the Government with regard to pensions. He did not think that they were receiving fair treatment by the mode in which the Government were now acting. As respected salaries, it was a most important matter, and the Government could raise them by bringing up the amount of public money given to Ireland to the same amount as that allowed Scotland. Between £60,000 and £70,000 was allowed to Scotland, and if the sum contributed to Ireland was raised to that amount, there would be an opportunity of paying the Irish National School Teachers proper salaries. He only asked that the same amount per head should be paid in Ireland as was paid in Scotland. In Scotland the Government spent about 3s. 2d. per head; whereas in Ireland the public money spent did not exceed 2s. 4d. per head. He considered that during the next six or eight months the Government ought to do something with regard to this matter. At all events, if the Government did not wish to contribute, they might allow the teachers to receive the result fees earned by them without the contribution of the Union.

    1853
    At the present time, about £25,000 to £35,000 was returned into the Exchequer as surplus money, voted for national education in Ireland; that should be expended in increasing the salaries of the Irish National School Teachers—for it could not be expected that those people would remain contented to receive £50 a-year in Ireland, while the same class in England and Scotland obtained £105 a-year. If the suggestion he had made were attended to, it would do a great deal to put an end to the feeling of discontent which the action of the Government in regard to education in Ireland had excited.
    Question put.
    The House divided: — Ayes 47; Noes 30: Majority 17. — (Div. List, No. 276.)

    STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).—OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYwished to call the attention of the Government to the condition of the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. They were now appointed under the Act of Will. IV., which reduced the amount of their retiring salaries and placed them under a disadvantage as compared with their former position. The result was that while magistrates appointed before 1847 were allowed to retire on their full salaries, those who were appointed after that date had to retire at a much reduced pension; consequently, the Bench in Ireland was now stocked with men who were really not capable of discharging their duties. The men appointed before 1847 retired on completing the full period of 20 years' service, while the magistrates appointed after 1847, having to retire on a diminished pension, were averse to retiring at all. He did not mean to advocate that any larger pensions should be given than at present —that was a question for the Government—but he did submit that some steps should be taken to induce these gentlemen to retire from the duties of their office when they had reached the ordinary period when a man's labours should cease. At present, it was no uncommon thing for magistrates to be 71, 73, or 76 years of age. It was all very well to have men in the Superior Courts of very great age, because they were
    1854
    under the eye of public opinion; but these local magistrates were little kings in their own districts. They represented the law in rural localities, and it was most desirable that the law should be wisely and properly represented. Without suggesting that there should be any larger increase of the pensions, or that other stringent measures should be adopted, he would suggest to the Government the desirability of removing these magistrates at the proper time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that the matter, as he understood it, was rather difficult to decide by any legislation, and must be left to the action of public opinion, which up to that time had been found to be adequate. It had not been found necessary to lay down a hard-and-fast line as to the age at which a man should retire, and he did not think it was desirable to increase the compensation.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    TELEGRAPHS BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 257.]
    [Lord John Manners.)
    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Differences relating to a street or public road to be determined by stipendiary magistrates, county court judge, or sheriff).
    MR. BRISTOWEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 28, to leave out all the words after "difference" to the end of the clause, in order to insert the words "shall be decided by a judge of the High Court of Justice." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to enable any difference that might arise to be disposed of by the High Court of Justice, instead of by the Railway Commissioners. He did not think that the Commissioners, being a temporary body, should be the persons to whom references should ultimately be made. He had been informed, however, by the Postmaster General, that the matter had been under considerable discussion, and that, without giving any distinct opinion as to the merits of the

    1855
    Amendment, he could not accept it. Under these circumstances, he would not divide upon it, but would consent to have it negatived, having regard to the communication that had been made to him.
    Amendment negatived.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    HIGHWAYS BILL— [BILL 298.]

      CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
      Lords Amendments considered.
      In reply to Mr. WHITWELL,
      MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that by an Amendment to Clause 24, it was intended to give a more extended notice to owners than was provided for under the original clause.
      Lords Amendments agreed to, with Amendments, and with Consequential Amendments to the Bill.

    TRAMWAY ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL— [BILL 299.]

      CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
      Lords Amendments considered.
      MR. MONKsaid, he should be glad to know what course the Government proposed to take with regard to these Amendments, and if they intended to agree to them. His constituents had learnt with great astonishment that, after the recommendations of the Select Committee on Tramways, with regard to steam power, and after a Bill had passed through that House for the purpose of authorizing its use, the House of Lords had struck out all the clauses with regard to mechanical power on tramways. The Committee had reported unanimously in favour of steam power; and, in addition to that, the principle was confirmed in a very full House by 216 votes to 119. The Bill had gone before the other House, and it had come back with all the steam power clauses struck out. It appeared, so far as he could learn, that that had been done at the instance of one person, without any evidence having been taken by the other House; and therefore he wished to ask the Government whether they intended to agree with these Amendments, or to confirm the views arrived at
      1856
      by the House in the case of the Private Bill to which he had referred, as well as by a Committee which sat for several weeks and took a great amount of evidence, and eventually issued a Report in favour of the use of steam power based upon evidence of the most satisfactory nature? This was a matter in which he knew his hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees had taken a great interest, and upon which he had appointed a very strong Committee, consisting principally of hon. Members who were usually Chairmen of Private Bill Committees. It was a very serious matter that after the enormous expense to which the promoters of these Bills had been put, at the last moment, by the mere will and whim of a single Member of Parliament, the power and right to use steam on tramways should be denied to England and Wales. He therefore hoped, in the first place, that the Government would not agree to those clauses being struck out; or, at all events, if they did so, they would assure him that the expenses to which the promoters of these tramways had been put in the matter should not be thrown away, but that legislation with regard to steam power should be proposed next year.
      MR. J. G. TALBOTagreed with his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Monk), that it would be a great convenience to have the consideration of the matter taken to-morrow.
      Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till To-morrow.

    TERRITORIAL WATERS JURISDICTION BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 137.]
    (Mr. Attorney General.)
    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that he much regretted that the Bill had been so placed on the Paper that it was impossible to have a fair discussion of it. He had not expected that the Bill would be taken that night, nor did he believe that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General thought it was likely to come on. Three o'clock in the morning was a very improper time to enter upon the discussion of a Bill involving such momentous questions as this, violating, as it did, the rights of foreign nations, and, as he was told,

    1857
    being directly in opposition to the opinion of foreign countries. The Bill was perfectly unnecessary, for he considered that the law of England, as it at present stood, together with the good relations that now existed between nations, were quite sufficient to accomplish the purpose aimed at by the measure. It reversed the solemn decision of the Judges in the Court for Crown Cases Reserved in the case of the Franconia, and, therefore, it was a matter of very great importance. The effect of the Bill, as it now stood, would be to give a jurisdiction to the English Courts over all foreign ships within three miles of the shore of England, whether they were ships of war or merchant ships. The principle of the law of England was that the jurisdiction of the Admiralty commenced at low water mark, and that only the Court of Admiralty had jurisdiction there; but by Statute, Judges of Assize had jurisdiction in the space between high and low water mark — that was to say, there was a jurisdiction to that extent in the Common-Law Courts. Thus, at high water, the Admiralty had jurisdiction over the fore shore; but at low water, the ordinary Courts exercised authority up to the limit of the strand left bare by the sea. In running-down cases, the matters were dealt with by virtue of the good relations which existed between various nations. In the case of the Franconia, the man who was charged with the running down was tried in his own country for the offence, and it was thereby clear that there was no need for this legislation. He ventured to say that if any foreign ship did any injury on the high seas, a remedy would be afforded to this country by the nation to which the captain of the vessel belonged; and, therefore, no change of the law was necessary to meet this case. No doubt, the ordinary rule of International Law was that every country had jurisdiction within three miles of its own shore. That, he admitted, was the principle laid down by the authorities on International Law, who held that a jurisdiction was exercisable by any particular State within a certain distance of its own shores, wherever the safety of such State rendered it necessary. Thus, any country had a right to provide for its own safety by exercising a certain jurisdiction over the sea near its own shores, and over the ships within that limit, in such
    1858
    particulars as were necessary for her safety, and came within the range of International Law. But it was unnecessary for the safety of any country that its Courts should have jurisdiction over the sea within three miles of the shore in ordinary criminal cases. He did think, therefore, that this Bill was founded on a misapprehension of the rule about the three miles' distance—that the Bill was unnecessary, and that it was calculated to bring this country, as it would bring it, into difficulties with foreign nations. It was true that there was a clause in the Bill providing that no proceedings should be taken against persons other than Her Majesty's subjects without the permission of the Secretary of State; but that clause showed the weakness of the measure. It was an admission that the Bill was contrary to the rights of other nations. Therefore, to provide that no proceedings should be taken against foreigners without the previous permission of the Secretary of State was not sufficient, for a Public Bill should be so framed as not to violate the rights of foreign countries; it should only be framed within the limits which International Law had laid down as the jurisdiction of a country. It was not right to go beyond that, and attempt to give jurisdiction to the ordinary Courts in cases where it was not required for the safety of the country, and where International Law was against the exercise of such jurisdiction. By so extending the jurisdiction to Criminal Courts, the principles of International Law were really violated. Last Session, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) brought in a Bill like the present, and the hon. and learned Solicitor General then very properly said that such a Bill ought not to be introduced without previous communication with foreign countries—and in the earlier part of the evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told him that no such communication had taken place — and obtaining their consent to its passing. In his opinion, the wisest course for Her Majesty's Government to take would be to withdraw this Bill and re-consider the Motion; and, if necessary, to introduce another Bill next Session, after communications with some of the principal foreign nations. He would not say more at that early hour; but would reserve any further observations to the third

    1859
    reading. He was afraid, if the Bill passed in its present form, it would be found to give rise to considerable difficulties with foreign countries.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Amendment of the law as to the jurisdiction of the Admiral).
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that its effect would be to include a ship of war as well as a merchant vessel. By the law of nations, every ship of war was part of the territory of the country to which it belonged. Supposing an offence were committed on board a ship of war, and steps were taken to punish the criminal according to the law laid down by this Bill, it would be, in effect, a violation of International Law. It was no answer to say that the Secretary of State might not possibly allow such steps to be taken, nor was it any answer to the objection to the clause on the ground that it was contrary to the principles of International Law to say that an offence committed on board a ship of war belonging to a foreign country would not be cognizable by the English Courts, for the Bill already made it so. The effect of the clause, therefore, was to violate the principles of International Law, and it was desirable that at some future stage of the Bill this should be remedied. That could be done by making the only offences cognizable by the English Courts such as were committed on board any foreign ship, or by the crew of any foreign ship not being a ship of war. Such a Proviso would render the clause less objectionable, and he, therefore, begged to move that as an Amendment to it.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)observed, that the Amendment was unnecessary, and might imperil the passing of the Bill. The Bill did not affect to deal with any principle of International Law, and he might observe that such authorities as the Lord Chancellor, Lord Selborne, and Lord Hatherley agreed in the opinion that a foreign ship of war was not included by the definition given in the clause.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERwas not aware that the point had yet been raised; but he considered it unquestionable that
    1860
    the words "foreign ship" included a ship of war. By the Interpretation. Clause, it was provided that "foreign ship" should mean any ship that was not a British ship. It was all very well to say that International Law would operate to prevent any breach of its own rules; but there would be an Act of Parliament expressly to override it. The Judges would have the words of the Act of Parliament before them, and not the rules of International Law; and supposing that there were words in the Act of Parliament which, in their opinion, included foreign ships of war, they would have to give effect to them. He maintained that a Judge would have to decide on the words in the English Act of Parliament, and would have no power to say that the rules of International Law overruled an Act of Parliament.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)remarked, that the same observation would apply to every Act of Parliament. Surely the hon. and learned Member could not consider such a position tenable.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that the case cited by the Solicitor General was not pari materia. Clearly, if the term "French ship" were used, it would mean every French vessel, whether a ship of war or not. Even with regard to a merchant ship, there was a principle of law that it was ex-territorial, though in a minor degree to a ship of war. Let them take another case. If an Act of Parliament prescribed certain regulations with regard to all foreign houses in this country, that would apply as well to the houses of Ambassadors as to others. The Judges, in such a case, would not be at liberty to hold that the rules of International Law prevailed, and exempted the houses of Ambassadors from the operation of the Act of Parliament.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
    House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.