Commons Sitting of 7 May 1878

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Army, Royal Artillery and Engineer Officers (Arrears of Pay), Lord George Hamilton re-appointed; Public Works (East India), Lord George Hamilton re-appointed.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Bermondsey Vestry 2°, put off.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation*; Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Provisional Orders*; Local Government Provisional Orders (Droitwich, &c.)*; Local Government Provisional Orders (Belper Union, &c.)*; Local Government Provisional Orders (Boldre, &c.)*; Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny Union, &c.)*.
Second Reading—Congé d'élire [110], [House counted out].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BERMONDSEY VESTRY BILL.
  [Lords.] (By Order.)
  BERMONDSEY VESTRY BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. STANSFELD,in moving that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, said, its objects would be found described in Clause 5, which was to this effect—
    "It shall be lawful to the Vestry, and they are hereby required, within six months of the passing of this Act, to purchase and transfer to the
    1510
    said Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, in consideration of the abolition of the said Easter offerings, a sum of £6,666 13 s. 4d. Consols; and upon such transfer being completed, the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England shall hold the said sum of Consols upon trust to pay the dividends from time to time accruing thereupon to the Rector of the said parish, and his successors, Rectors of the same parish, for ever."
    Therefore, the object of the Bill was to impose a perpetual charge of £200 a-year on the general rates of the parish of Bermondsey for the payment of the Rector of that parish. He (Mr. Stansfeld) must state to the House a few facts in connection with the origin of these proceedings. In 1826, a Bill was introduced and passed, the object of which was to provide for some expenses in connection with the building of the tower of the church of St. James, in the parish of Bermondsey; and, by the same Bill, the trustees were empowered to receive—if the raising of the money had been approved by the inhabitants in vestry assembled—two sums, one of £150, which was to go to the Incumbent of the district church of St. James, and the other of a sum not exceeding £200 per annum, which was to be assigned to the Rector of the parish of Bermondsey. It was at the discretion of the ratepayers to make this annual offering which the Rectors must accept in lieu of Easter offerings. In 1831, an Act was passed to provide an additional sum of money; but that had no special bearing on this matter. The capital sum for paying for the tower was raised by a number of annuities which had all expired, and that was no longer a charge upon the ratepayers of the parish. As to the £150, that had been voted only once since 1826. As regarded the £200, although it had been annually voted, according to his information, of late years questions had arisen respecting the payment. This voluntary and discretionary rate had become more or less a bone of contention, and it was only by bare majorities that it had been decided to come to this House to ask that the discretionary power should be put an end to, and the levying of the rate made compulsory for all time. Let them look for one moment at the successive stages of this transaction. In 1826, the inhabitants of Bermondsey, in public vestry assembled, were authorized, if they chose, to present to the trustees a yearly sum, not to exceed £200, which the Rector was to accept in

    1511
    lieu of Easter offerings. That was a wholly voluntary matter. Then, some 20 years later, came the Metropolis Management Acts; and these deprived the inhabitants of Bermondsey of this discretionary right, because all the functions of the open vestry were handed over to the close vestry. Of late years some question had arisen, even in the vestry so chosen, as to the payment of the £200; and now the vestry asked that their successors should be deprived of their discretionary right, and this was done at the very time when the annual elections for the parish of Bermondsey were taking place, and this question was being made part of the politics of the contests. Therefore, if this Bill was read a second time, and was referred to a Select Committee, it might have to be withdrawn after all, provided the new vestry was opposed to it. Under these circumstances, he considered it was not, in the first place, consistent with respect to the House of Commons, and to the individual Members who might be asked to serve on the Committee, that a Bill should be promoted at a time when elections were going on in reference to it, and which elections might end in the Bill having to be withdrawn. He must also take another objection, and that was to the form in which this Bill had been introduced. It was highly improper that a measure involving the principle which this Bill did should be introduced as a Private Bill. They had abolished church rates, and he did not suppose anybody would propose to return to that system; but the proposal of this Bill was something far more objectionable, from the point of view of those who objected to church rates, than any church rate could be. This rate was to be imposed, not in order to maintain the fabric of the church, but for the sake of paying a sum in perpetuity to the Rector who should minister in the church. He did not know whether it was right that he should offer any suggestion as to what would be the proper course to take; but it would be more frank, perhaps, if he did so. Therefore, he would say, that in his view, what he would call the Halifax precedent ought to be followed. A few years ago, the case of the Vicar's rate, in Halifax, caused a good deal of feeling to arise. The subject was inquired into, and the result was the passing of a Bill which
    1512
    repealed an Act of 1828, and abolished the rate as far as it was a charge upon the occupiers of houses, and as far as it represented Easter offerings. Then the wealthy members of the church came forward and subscribed a certain sum, and that was the course which ought to be followed in this case. Let the wealthy members of the church in Bermondsey subscribe this sum of £6,666, and all objections would then be withdrawn. If any doubt or question existed in the minds of hon. Members as to the statements he had made, the best course would be to appoint a Committee to investigate the subject. For the reasons he had stated, and asking the House to bear in mind that within 10 days the vestry elections in Bermondsey would take place, he would conclude by moving the rejection of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he hoped to be able to show that the House ought to pass this Bill. He had little to complain of in the statement of facts which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had placed before them, but he had not told them all. He said the raising of this £200 was optional. Now, that was scarcely the fact; for, if the right hon. Gentleman had gone a little further back in the history of the case, he would have found that originally there was a sort of poll tax of 4d. per head, which the Rector had a right to levy upon all the inhabitants of the parish over 16 years of age. Subsequently, the parishioners came to an arrangement to let the Rector have £200, in lieu of this tax, and which was spoken of as if it was in lieu of tithes; and for a great many years it had been understood in the parish that the money belonged to the Rector, and that the vestry had to find it. It was never intended as a gift from the vestry to the Rector; but it was always treated as his due. The endowment of the parish itself was only £17 a-year, and out of this the Rector had to pay £6 a-year to Queen Anne's Bounty,

    1513
    and, being a parish church, he could not have pew-rents. Therefore, for these reasons, the parish had been bound to pay the Rector the £200; and which sum had hitherto been paid for, he believed, nearly 200 years. When, in 1826, the Act was passed to which reference had been made, it was not only for the purpose of building a spire, but it created a special trust which was appointed to collect this fund, and the money had been collected under that trust up to the present time. The result, however, was, as now, that there was no other fund to be collected but this £200; that the collection of the £200 cost the parish nearly £120 a-year; and the vast majority of the parish—Liberals and Conservatives, Dissenters and Churchmen—now thought it was a pity they should continue to pay that £120, and they therefore had promoted the present Bill, which contained a new arrangement, by which they would be at once saved £20 a-year, and in 50 years the whole thing would be at an end; because, by raising £300 a-year on the security of the rates, they would be able to form a sinking sum of £100 per annum, which would in 50 years pay off the amount borrowed, and give the Rector for the time being £200 in perpetuity. He believed it was the almost unanimous wish of the ratepayers that this new arrangement should be carried into effect, and he hoped everyone in the House would see that it was the direct interest of the parish that the Bill should pass, and that the question should be solved and settled in the manner proposed. It had been stated that vestries were not elected for such purposes as these, and no doubt that was the case; but that afforded a reason why this Bill should pass, because it was not desirable that matters of this kind should have to be annually discussed by the vestry, and political cries made out of them. In this case the Rector had a direct claim upon the parish, and it was to be hoped the House would give their sanction to the arrangement which had met with the support of all shades of opinion in the parish. Churchmen and Dissenters, Liberals and Conservatives, were alike in favour of it, and it would be unjust if the House, to gratify an extreme section of its Members, should refuse the power of securing the advantages which this Bill would give them.
    MR. RAIKES: I have not much to say in answer to what has fallen from either the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), or my hon. and learned Friend who has just addressed the House (Mr. Grantham). I think both have fairly stated the facts of the case. What I wish, however, to point out is, that after all we must ask what are the civil rights involved in this question? The Bill is one which proposes to deal with a rate by capitalizing it, and it is promoted by a body which has now the power to levy that rate; and therefore the circumstances ought to be very exceptional indeed which would induce the House to refuse to sanction the second reading of the Bill. I do not mean to say there might not be circumstances which would justify the House in refusing to read such a Bill a second time, because questions of great public principle might be raised; but I still think the House will pause before agreeing to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, because of an imagined analogy to the Halifax, or any other case. We all may have our opinion as to whether £200 a-year is, or is not, an enormous sum to give a clergyman whose parochial care includes many thousand persons; but I want the House rather to consider whether it would be fair to the parish of Bermondsey itself to reject this Bill at its present stage. The Bill has passed through the House of Lords, where it has been amended, and it has now been sent down to this House; and I think we might show our sense of the importance of the question, not by refusing to read the Bill a second time, but by taking an exceptional course with regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman has made a fair point in saying that it is possible during the next 10 days the constitution of the vestry by which this Bill has been promoted may be altered by the new elections which are about to take place, and that the new vestry might drop the Bill. It appears to me that may be met by our reading the Bill a second time, and then referring it to a Hybrid Committee—and I will undertake that such Committee is not nominated until 10 days have elapsed—therefore, no hon. Member of this House could then be put in the false

    1515
    position of being appointed on the Committee of a Bill which is not likely to be proceeded with. Allusion has been made to the Halifax case, and I would just say that there the Vicar's rate was disputed on the death of the Vicar in 1876. There was no Bill before Parliament at that time, but a Select Committee was appointed to consider the incidence of the rate; and they reported that the rate ought to be continued, in so far as it represented tithes, and that, as regarded Easter offerings, it ought to be abolished. But the ultimate settlement which was arrived at was not the outcome of the Report of that Committee. A certain sum was forthcoming in Halifax, which enabled those interested in the question to promote a Bill to meet the difficulty. I would now appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, whatever may be their opinions, whether Churchmen or Nonconformists, to bear in mind that this is not to be regarded as a question between Church and Dissent, in anyway. It is a question whether you are to take away from the vestry of Bermondsey a right which they are entitled to put forward—namely, that of capitalizing this rate. They believe they can do it on advantageous terms, and I think this House will be departing from the practice hitherto followed, if they refuse to read such a Bill as this a second time. I think the more satisfactory course will be to allow the Bill to pass this stage, and then refer it to a Hybrid Committee in the manner which I have suggested.
    MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSwould like to be informed of one fact—and that was, as to the relation of the parish of Bermondsey with this rate. Were the vestry under any legal obligation to enforce the rate, or were they merely empowered to make a rate if they thought fit to do so? As far as he, at present, understood the principle of the Bill, it was that the vestry of Bermondsey were under an obligation to make the rate, and that all they desired now was that this House should sanction some other mode of meeting that obligation. If, however, the vestry were under no legal obligation to make the rate, and could not be compelled to make it, then the Bill involved an important principle; and, although they were only dealing with a small sum of money, they ought to be careful
    1516
    how they set a precedent for the future.
    MR. DODSONthought the Preamble of the Bill answered the Question which had just been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Watkin Williams), and it was clearly a permissive rate, the parish having power either to make or refuse it. He was very reluctant to take part in the discussion of a Private Bill, and to come forward, even in a modified way, to oppose the suggestion made by the Chairman of Ways and Means; but the question really reduced itself to this— There was given to this parish some years ago a statutory power to make a rate—which was, in fact, a church rate —to pay the stipend of the Rector. But the power to make the rate also carried with it the power to refuse to make it, and there had been some idea of doing this by a portion of the vestry; and the majority seeing this, and that their majority was lessening, thought they had better take time by the forelock, and get power to make the rate a fixed charge while they could. Now, that was a proposition which, he thought, this House ought not to be prepared to assent to. There was a strong feeling in the parish on the subject, and the present elections were turning on the point. If the House were to agree to the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, they would involve themselves in a sanction of the second reading of the Bill; and, therefore, the course he would propose was that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that the second reading of the Bill should be deferred for one month, by which time they would know the result of the elections, and they would see what the feeling of the new vestry was with regard to the Bill.
    MR. FORSYTHhoped the House would assent to the second reading, because all the objections which had been raised to it could be dealt with in Committee. He quite admitted that the vestry were not at present bound to vote the £200; but they had, regularly done so for the last 40 or 50 years, and it was not right or decent that the question of giving the clergyman £200 should every year be made a bone of contention at the election of the vestrymen.
    MR. MOWBRAYthought, that of the two alternatives placed before the House, they ought to accept that of the

    1517
    Chairman of Ways and Means; because, if they assented to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester, and postponed the Bill altogether for one month, it would stand very little chance of passing at all this Session.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 122: Majority 5.—(Div. List, No. 112.)
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINgave Notice, that on an early day he would move the following Resolution:—
  "That this House, sharing the earnest desire expressed in the circular despatch of the Marquess of Salisbury for the good government, peace, and freedom of populations to which those blessings have been strange, condemns the policy of warlike demonstration which Her Majesty's Government has pursued, and is of opinion that the objects in question and an honourable and peaceful settlement of the existing difficulties will be best promoted by an European Congress, and by a frank definition of the changes in the Treaty of San Stefano which Her Majesty's Government consider to be necessary for the general good of Europe and the interests of England."
  The hon. Member also gave Notice, that on Thursday he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would facilitate the discussion of the subject?
  CAPTAIN PIMgave Notice, that on going into Committee of Supply he would move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying her to take such steps as may be necessary to invite the immediate assembling in London of a Congress of Representatives of all the independent States of Europe, to determine the best means of preserving the general interests of Europe and of maintaining inviolate the sanctity of Treaties."

QUESTIONS.

  INLAND REVENUE—DOG TAX (IRE LAND).—QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether
  1518
  the Government is prepared to introduce a Bill to make the same alterations in the Dog Tax in Ireland as are proposed in the rest of the United Kingdom?
  MR. J. LOWTHER,in reply, said, he must remind the hon. Member that the dog tax in Ireland was a source of local and not of Imperial Revenue; and, therefore, the most convenient form in which that question could be raised would be on the Grand Jury (Ireland) Bill.

  FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, 1875—ADUL TERATED LIQUOR.—QUESTION.
  MR. A. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What steps, if any, have been taken by the Irish Government to put in force the provisions of "The Food and Drugs Act, 1875," relating to the detection of adulterated liquor?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, In 1875 and 1876 the Local Government Board in Ireland addressed circular letters to each of the urban and rural sanitary authorities, drawing their attention to the provisions of the Act, and making suggestions as to the steps that should be taken. In 1877 the Irish Government issued a circular to the secretaries of Grand Juries and town clerks of boroughs, informing them that police constables were authorized to assist the local authorities in carrying out the provisions of the Act. By the 13th section of the Act, it will be found that one of the duties of the constable so employed related to the very point to which the hon. Gentleman refers—namely, the detection of adulterated liquor. In case any mistake should have arisen, I have directed another circular to be prepared on the subject which will meet the case.

ARMY AND MILITIA RESERVES— FAMILIES OF RESERVE MEN.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the amount paid to or for each of the wives and children of the men of the Army and Militia Reserves lately summoned to the Colours; whether any complaints have been addressed to him regarding the insufficiency of the provision made for the maintenance of such wives and children; and, further, if he proposes to make any permanent or temporary addition to these separation allowances?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, in answering the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) will allow me to answer his Question at the same time. The amount paid for each of the wives and children of the men of the Army and Militia Reserves is at the rate of 6d. for each woman and 2d. per day for each child under 14 years of age. No complaints have reached me, officially or otherwise, with regard to the insufficiency of the provision made for the maintenance of such wives and children; although it is fair to say that reports have been received from individual members of Boards of Guardians calling attention to the subject, and saying that the question had been brought under their consideration. I have ordered a Return as to the number of women and children concerned. This Return has not yet come in, and, therefore, perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Galway will repeat his Question to me on Monday. An order has gone out to alter the mode of payment. Payments, instead of being made monthly in arrear, as heretofore, will, for the future, be paid monthly in advance.

THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE CROWN—THE INDIAN CONTINGENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Indian Government has voted money for the conveyance of Native troops to British possessions in Europe; if not, out of what funds the expenses of such troops have been provided; and whether the Government intend to propose a Supplementary Vote to supply such funds; and, if so, how soon the Vote will be proposed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I observe that, besides the Question of the hon. Member, there are two others on the Paper, both of which relate to the same subject. To a certain extent, I answered some portions of them yesterday by anticipation, and, perhaps, I may take this opportunity of supplementing what I then stated. The Indian Government has, for the moment, provided what is necessary for the fitting out of the expedition and the payment
  1520
  of the troops; and, as soon as we are in a position to do so, we shall be prepared to submit a Supplementary Estimate to the House to repay the whole of that expenditure, and to make such further provision as may be necessary for the support and pay of those troops. I am not at the present moment able to say how soon we can do that, but there shall be no unnecessary delay, and I hope it will be very shortly. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) asks under what Act or Articles of War the Native troops of India now serve, and whether they might serve in Europe, or the United Kingdom, or the Channel Islands? I gave a very brief answer last night, but I may now say that the Native troops of India serve under the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War passed by the Government of India. The authority under which the Indian Government proceeded in passing that Act, and in framing those Articles, is the Imperial Statute the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 25, which has been confirmed and kept alive since the transfer of the Government from the East India Company to the Crown by the Act 24 & 25 Vict. c. 67, s. 22, and which makes such Articles of War binding upon the Native troops who are under them, "wheresoever they may be serving." The Native soldier's oath binds him to go wherever he is ordered, by sea or land, and to obey all commands of the officers set over him. He may, therefore, be called on to serve in any part of Europe, as well as any other part of the world, and to serve under Indian Articles of War. But, as I stated last night, the settlement of the Bill of Rights and the provisions of 1 William and Mary, prevent his being brought into the United Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament.
  MR. J. HOLMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether they can be called upon to serve in the Channel Islands, although not in the United Kingdom?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes; I believe they can be called upon to serve in the Channel Islands.
  MR. E. JENKINS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question, with the view of clearing up a point of difficulty which has arisen out of his remarks

  1521
  yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the transfer of the troops from India was simply a transfer from one part of Her Majesty's Dominions to another; and now I beg to ask, If he will state for what part of Her Majesty's Dominions the Force is destined?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Malta.

MOTIONS.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRE LAND).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. MELDON,in rising to call attention to the claims of the National School Teachers, and to move—
  "That 'The National School Teachers' (Ireland) Act, 1875,' and the other means adopted by the Government having failed to satisfy the just demands of the Irish National School Teachers, this House is of opinion that the present position of the Irish National School Teachers, and the discontent which prevails amongst that important body of public servants, calls for the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to a satisfactory adjustment of their claims,"
  said, that the subject was one which concerned not only the well-being of at least 10,000 public servants, but also the educational interests of the entire country, and therefore it was of great importance. He did not propose to go into the general question, which had been discussed upon several occasions in that House, as to what were the nature of the grievances of which they complained; nor did he intend to seek to prove what those grievances were, which had really existed so far back as 1874, but to briefly refer to certain points affecting the question, which he hoped would command the attention of the House. He first introduced the subject on the 9th of June, 1874, when he called attention, in the first place, to the salaries of the National Teachers of Ireland, which he stated were quite insufficient for the work they did. He also then pointed out that they complained because no provision for them in their old age or any compensation was given upon their leaving their employment; and, in the next place, he further called attention to the fact that they could not efficiently and properly discharge their duties, inasmuch as they were not provided with residences near their schools,
  1522
  many of the teachers having to travel six or seven miles in some instances, in consequence of the arrangements for residences not being satisfactory. Upon the occasion he brought forward his Motion, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reply to the discussion which was raised, asked the House to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, which would endeavour to meet the question; and upon this statement he (Mr. Meldon) was asked to withdraw his Motion, it being admitted that the grievances complained of did exist. Notwithstanding that there was great indisposition on the part of several of his supporters to withdraw the Motion, he ultimately consented to do so on the understanding that the Government would take the matter up; but down to the present time, with the exception of some alteration in regard to the residences, there had been no advantage given to the National Teachers. In the year 1875, the subject was again before the House, and the Chief Secretary had said, with reference to the training schools, that the emoluments of the teachers were not sufficient to induce them to remain in the service, and he had given it as his opinion that it would be the duty of the Government to improve their position. Subsequently, the National School Teachers' Act was passed. With regard to the question of the salaries of the teachers, the average amount in 1875 was about £43 a-year, and the Act in question, which was passed, increased the emoluments which could be earned by the teachers by way of the result system, and it was proposed that an increase of £120,000 a-year should be added to what the teachers then earned by way of results. He did not move this Motion in a way hostile to the Government, for he cordially admitted that, so far as one could judge, they were well-disposed towards the teachers, and the Act of 1875 had been of benefit to education generally, and for years to come the teachers would derive a very large amount of benefit from the exertions made; but he must say that both of the schemes which had been tried were only experiments so far as the teachers were concerned. In regard to the scheme of the Teachers' Amendment Act, introduced in 1875, the £120,000 was to be contributed towards payment of the teachers by results; but

  1523
  the Act did not provide for it being a certain payment, it being only conditional, over which the teachers had no control. The Act provided that the Boards of Guardians should have permission to vote, if they so pleased, out of the rates a sum of £60,000 for the purpose of remunerating the teachers, and the Government, in order to induce them to do so, promised to add an amount equal to that which was subscribed by the Guardians. Now, if the Boards of Guardians all over the country had contributed, the teachers would be entitled every year to the entire amount which they might have earned by results; but those Boards had done nothing of the kind. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, after the passing of the Act, had urged the teachers to go to the Guardians and endeavour to induce them to vote the money necessary, and the teachers had accordingly exerted themselves to the utmost to get the Guardians to become contributory. Well, in 1875 there were 163 Poor Law Unions in Ireland; and in that year 35 Unions in Ulster became contributory, and ninerefused. In Munster 14 contributed and 36 refused, in Leinster 13 contributed and 27 refused, and in Connaught 26 refused, while only three became contributory; the total result being that, while in 1875 65 Unions were contributory, 98 refused to become so. In 1876, 70 contributed and 93 refused; but, in point of fact, it was not really open to the Boards of Guardians in all cases to vote themselves non-contributory until 1877. In that year 18 Unions ceased to contribute; in Munster only three voted themselves contributory out of 14 which had done so in 1875, and 47 refused to contribute; in Ulster only eight Unions became contributory, and 32 refused; and in Con-naught 28 refused, while only one Union became contributory. Thus, out of 163 Unions, there were only 38 contributory in 1877, and 125 passed resolutions to the effect that they would not contribute— that being really the first year in which the Act had been fairly tested. On the 31st of March last, throughout the entire of Ireland, only 26 Unions were contributory, while 137 had voted themselves not contributory; and since that time he understood that the number of Unions voting themselves contributory was not more than 12 or 14. That state of things operated so that the teachers
  1524
  never knew at the beginning of a year what their salaries might be. When the Act was passed, it was stated by the then Chief Secretary for Ireland that it was only an experiment which he was willing to try as to whether money could be obtained for educational purposes, and that it was only a temporary measure. He (Mr. Meldon) contended that he had shown that the Act had thoroughly and entirely failed; and, even if it were not so, the system would be unsatisfactory, inasmuch as the remuneration of the teachers did not depend upon what they could do, but upon a system which had been fairly tried, had worked unsatisfactorily, and which had wholly failed. By it gross injustice was done to a large number of teachers of Ireland. The Act of 1875 had failed, and the teachers had not received the amount which by that Act it was intended they should receive. The result was, with all the assistance given by the Government, that the average salaries of the teachers was £50 a-year. Was such a sum fair remuneration for a National School Teacher, and a fair payment for a class of educated men, to whom the education of the youth of the country was intrusted? Upon the teachers depended a great deal what the youth of the country would become in after life, not only in educational accomplishments, but in social position; and how could it be expected to secure men of ability and good social position, men to whom the people would look up to with respect, for the miserable pittance of £50? And not only so, but this salary was dependent upon contingencies and circumstances over which the teacher had no control. In tributory Unions, they were dependent upon the will and wishes of the Boards of Guardians; so that it was clear their position was, at the present time, not such as was contemplated in 1875. The intention of the Act of that year was to augment the incomes by a sum of £120,000; but in 1876, the year when the Act worked most successfully, the amount contributed by the Unions was £30,499, and by the State £52,183, so that the only portion of the £120,000 in that year received was £82,682. There were then 70 contributing Unions, and now there were only 26; so that in the year gone by there would be a reduction of £20,333, and, notwithstanding

  1525
  all the exertions made, the amount reached only £62,349. It would be a great pity if the National system of education in Ireland should fail or receive a shock in consequence of the nonpayment of teachers. The system introduced in 1875 was by way of trial, and up to the present time had proved a failure, and should be put aside, and could not be relied upon. In a speech of the Chief Secretary, in 1876, it was admitted that the success of the Act was not such as had been hoped, and that something must be done to meet the case of teachers in non-contributory Unions; but now, up to May, 1878, not one single thing had been done to redeem the oft-repeated pledge given by the Government to increase the emoluments of the National Teachers of Ireland. The National system, as compared with 1857, was working satisfactorily. In that year there were 5,337 schools in all Ireland, with an average attendance of 321,683 pupils; while, according to the Report of the Commissioners, there were, in 1876, 7,334 schools, and an average attendance of 416,586. That showed a satisfactory progress of classed or certificated teachers. There were 10,277 in the service, but the classing these showed the absolute necessity of doing something for the teachers. They were divided into three classes, one and two being again subdivided. Of these 10,000, there were of the first in the first-class, 243; in the second-class, 2,956; and 6,389 in the third-class. Surely that offered matter for serious consideration, and showed a state of things that should not be allowed to continue. Out of 10,000, only 243 were in the first-class, and this, although he could say immediately—and, indeed, the opinion was confirmed by the Report—that the teachers were men most competent and with high ability. The reason was, that the teacher joined the service in early life, when a remunerative salary was not an object; but, having had some years of State-training, he found opportunities for a better livelihood, and so left the service, instead of rising into the first-class. Last year 688 left the service, and there were no inducements to men of ability and talent to remain in the service. No doubt there was good ground for the system of education to work on year by year. The average attendance was increasing, and the standard of efficiency rising; but
  1526
  still, although the grievances of the teachers were admitted, nothing was done to meet their moderate demands. To show the inadequacy of the remuneration they received, he might mention that while the average pay of a teacher in England and Scotland was over £100, in Ireland it was £50 only. What was it that he now asked in their behalf? No more than he had asked in 1874—namely, £2 a-week for teachers of the first-class—not a high salary for educated men, and below the income of a tradesman—£1 10 s. for those of the second-class, and £1 for teachers of the third-class. Surely that was a very moderate demand? With respect to the question of pensions, the teachers had a stronger claim still. He brought forward the question in 1874, when he received an assurance that it would receive the consideration of the Government. In March, 1875, he moved in the matter again, and the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said that the question of pensions was a difficult one; that the hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) had suggested a system of deferred annuities; that a scheme for the purpose had already received careful consideration; and that he was in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the possibility of its being carried into effect. Subsequently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to receive a deputation of the teachers on the subject. On that occasion, they were asked what they wanted? They had left their case in the hands of the Government; and not being, therefore, prepared for such a question, they could only reply that they wanted pensions, pure and simple. This was considered an extravagant demand; and, when he, shortly afterwards, asked a Question in the House in reference to the matter, that was stated as a reason for the whole thing having fallen to the ground. A congress of teachers from all parts of Ireland was then held at Dublin, and a second deputation waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and stated that the teachers were willing to accept whatever the Government would give them, and they mentioned the proposal as to the deferred annuities. That proposal was that each teacher should subscribe from the time he entered the service for a deferred Post Office annuity, and upon reaching a certain age, and

  1527
  still remaining in the service, the Government should supplement the amount subscribed with an equal amount; so that, for instance, say, that when a man reached 60, and had subscribed sufficient to purchase an annuity of £20 a-year, the Government would enable him to purchase an annuity of £40. Inquiries were then instituted as to whether the teachers, as a body, were willing to agree to this scheme. The response was that the entire body were willing that the deferred annuity system should be made compulsory. Then, as to the pension scheme, the teachers were led to believe that it would come into operation; but in this they had again been disappointed. The present system of gratuities to teachers on their retirement was most unsatisfactory. Teachers held on until they were almost dying, and the result was that the gratuity went to their friends and families. It was not too much now to hope that the scheme prepared in 1875 would be carried out, because the teachers were now in a worse position than in 1874. Since July last, however, they had not heard a word of the intentions of the Government, and, therefore, he thought he was not now pushing matters too far when he asked that the terms agreed upon a few years ago, with regard to salaries and pensions, should now be carried out. He did not dwell on the matter of residences, because he believed it was only a question as to the administration of the scheme brought in by the late Chief Secretary which prevented this point being settled. At present, only 20 per cent of the 10,277 teachers had residences. It might be asked of him— "What do you want?" He wanted for the three classes of teachers, £2, £1 10 s., and £1 a-week respectively secured to them. He wanted the principle of the Act of 1875 carried out, and that the teachers should have secured to them the sum of £120,000, which was to be added to their remuneration in the shape of results. He asked that the scheme of 1876, for providing them with pensions, should be carried out. That was all he asked; and he must say he thought that these unfortunate men, after having been kept waiting so long—ever since 1874—should not be put off any longer. He hoped he should not again have to worry the House on the subject. Unless better provision were made for the
  1528
  teachers, it would be more and more difficult to obtain the men fit for the purpose, and the cause of education must suffer proportionately in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. RICHARD SMYTH: Sir, although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) has presented a very complete argument in favour of the Motion which he has submitted to the House, still I think it may not be unsatisfactory to make it clear that it has the support of the various sections of Irish Representatives. The movement for the increase of pay and the granting of pensions to Irish National School Teachers has made some progress since 1874, when my hon. and learned Friend, for the first time, submitted his proposals on their behalf. I must say that the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for the Colonies entered into the question with an evident desire to bring about a satisfactory settlement. Unfortunately, his measures were tainted with that permissive element which, if I may be allowed to express an opinion, has enfeebled our legislation in recent years. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was in earnest; and, whilst the special plans he adopted may not have brought us to the goal we desired to reach, they have cleared the way for some other measure which may prove more successful. We are entitled, also, to take some encouragement from the words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in addressing a deputation recently in Dublin. I gathered from his words that he is well disposed towards the Motion now before the House, and that he will not be behind his Predecessor in endeavouring to advance the interests of Irish elementary education. If I had been framing the Motion, I would, perhaps, not have given it quite so personal an aspect as it presents; but my hon. and learned Friend, being a skilled Parliamentary tactician, has thrown it into that concrete form, which is generally the most practical, and, therefore, the most acceptable to the House. But this is not solely, or even principally, a question about National School Teachers. It is mainly a question about National Education. If we had no interest to consider but that of a class of public servants, and if the

  1529
  beginning and end of our discussion was to find out how we ought to treat them or pay them, then we might leave the whole thing to be settled by the ordinary laws of supply and demand. The teachers being shabbily treated could find their own remedy, and leave the Government to seek the services of such men as they could get for the money offered. No doubt of that; but what would become of education? The public interest would suffer, and it is from the point of view of public interests that we ought to look at this question. There are some works—such as cutting down a hill—which are only estimated by the amount done—so many cubic yards cut away, and it does not signify much how the thing is done if the work is accomplished; but, in education, everything turns upon the way in which the work is done, and, rather than have a set of incompetent men and women to carry on this work, it would be almost as well not to have it done at all. We shall very soon be face to face with serious difficulties in Ireland in the matter of education if the present discontent is not allayed. I daresay those who are already in the service of the country will hold on, as a general rule, because it is not easy for a schoolmaster or schoolmistress to adapt himself or herself to other employments. But the evil will be this—that the future supply will be cut off, and education will suffer. These are not groundless alarms; they are but too well-founded. Now, it so happens that Ireland wants some things—shall I say many things?—which Parliament is unwilling to grant, because they run counter to the prevailing political opinion, and are thought to be detrimental to Imperial interests. Well, that being so, I think this House of Commons would do wisely to indulge Ireland; I do not say do justice to it, for I believe in my heart that there is not an English or Scotch Member in this House who is not as anxious to see justice done to our country as any Irishman could be; but, if a sense of justice prevents you from doing certain things for Ireland which the people of that country would like to have done, we make bold to appeal to your sympathetic consideration when we have proposals to make which you do not oppose on the ground of principle. Of this class is the proposition now before you. It is a matter of
  1530
  detail, but of most important detail. Of course, money is always important; but this is more than money, it is the education which money buys that we are now considering. During the present Session, the House of Commons has not shown itself stingy in money matters. A current of unexampled liberality has been running along these benches, and all that my hon. and learned Friend is now doing by his Motion is to throw himself into the stream, and allow himself to be carried along in the current of Supplementary Estimates. I trust the House will pass this Motion, and that the Government will give effect to it; because it contains a proposal which violates no prejudice, is opposed to no recognized theory of government, and is, I hope, in harmony with the generous sentiments of this House. I second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the 'National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1875,' and the other means adopted by the Government, having failed to satisfy the just demands of the Irish National School Teachers, this House is of opinion that the present position of the Irish National School Teachers, and the discontent which prevails amongst that important body of public servants, call for the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to a satisfactory adjustment of their claims."—(Mr. Meldon.)
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, this was the fifth occasion during the present Parliament on which he had ventured to give his support to a Motion of this kind. He thought that hon. Members who did not represent Irish constituencies should recollect that this was in no sense a political or religious question. It was a subject on which the Representatives of all parties in Ireland were united. They ought also to recollect, that long before National Education in England was really dealt with, Parliament undertook to legislate for National Education in Ireland on altogether exceptional principles. It was in consequence of the manner in which Parliament had thus dealt with the subject, that this question came before Parliament and not before any local board. He did not deny that the principle of payment by results was a good one, so far as it tended to stimulate to energy and exertion. But it ought to rest upon the basis of a salary adequate for the ordinary wants of the teachers. Could it be a good thing that the teachers of Ireland should not have

  1531
  salaries adequate to their actual wants, and that they should be compelled to travel miles in the worst weather to attend to their duties, because no adequate provision of residences had been made for them. It was, he thought, quite clear, that while this was the case, the efficiency of the system of National Education must suffer. No doubt, an amount of local cooperation had been expected from passing the Act of 1875, but that had been only partial and incomplete; in fact, but one-sixth of the Unions of Ireland were contributory. He had strong reason for believing that even this result was a diminishing quantity. It did not appear to him that the onus lay upon hon. Members who supported that Motion of declaring in what precise way the object of the Government and of the Legislature in 1875 should now be carried out with respect to National Education in Ireland. The present arrangement as to the payment of teachers was most unjust, and they desired to remedy the evil. He asked the House cordially to support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare, unless they received some counter-proposal from the Government to carry out the object they had in view. He observed that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was looking uneasy. He had no doubt they would be told by him how much Scotland had done on behalf of education, and that the Irish were a thriftless nation. But he would ask the hon. Member to recollect the vast differences in the religious arrangements of Ireland and Scotland, and the difficulty of carrying out a system which could be so easily worked under totally different circumstances in England and Scotland.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he could assure his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Charles Lewis) that he was entirely mistaken as to the direction of the remarks he (Mr. M'Laren) was about to make. He entirely approved of what had been said as to these teachers, and he thought it was perfectly fair and exceedingly moderate, if the National system were to be kept on foot, and its schools were to be maintained at all, that stipends of that amount should be paid. But, agreeing that the Government should do something in the matter, and that things should not remain as they were, the question was, what ought the Government to do? It was suggested that they
  1532
  should make an addition to the poor rate, but he would venture to suggest that a school rate should be levied all over Ireland in the same manner as it was levied all over Scotland, and those parts of England where school boards were established. The poorest parish in Scotland had its poor rate, including a school rate, levied upon it; every cottar and householder above £4 rack-rent paying his proportion; and why should not the rich landlords and the householders in Ireland also be made to contribute towards educating their tenants and their families? In the Report, which came out about a fortnight ago, there was a table of the sums received by all the public schools in Scotland for the last four years—and by public schools he meant those under school boards, and did not include the schools of the Church of Scotland, Free Church, Episcopalians, and Roman Catholics. In the last four years these school boards had spent over a million and a-half—£1,547,000. Of this amount, £430,000, or less than one-third, came from the Government, the school rates produced £598,000, and the school pence of the children amounted to £471,000. Then, there were about £63,000 of voluntary payments and items from other sources, so that the result was as he had said. He had not looked into the Report of the schools in Ireland recently; but, from recollection, he thought he was pretty safe in saying that the whole of the school pence in Ireland did not amount to more than £60,000, while the subscriptions were very small, and did not amount to more than £20,000; and there was no school rate, which showed that at present no large burden was cast either upon the poor children or the rich landowners, who might subscribe liberally if they chose. He contended, therefore, that in Ireland, just as in Scotland and England, a small school rate should be levied upon the owner, who should be entitled to recover one-half of it afterwards from the occupier. It should not be called a burden, because it would be a payment for the benefit of the people themselves; and, although there might be some grumbling at first, yet when it was done, he was satisfied that in a few years there would be no rate that would be paid more pleasantly, when it was seen that people were better

  1533
  educated. It might be said that Ireland was poorer than Scotland, and he admitted that it was so upon the average; but there were scores of parishes in Scotland as poor as the poorest parishes in Ireland, and yet in every one of these the school rates were paid. The other alternative was the vulgar expedient of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money. Such a course as that was wrong in principle, and attended with most unhappy results. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to grant £100,000 for this purpose, Scotland would pay about £11,000, Ireland about £10,000, and England the remaining £79,000. He was not going to object to England paying £79,000 if she thought fit to do so; but if Scotland rated itself to the extent of £200,000 to £300,000 a-year, he did not see why it should also pay £11,000 to save the pockets of the landowners in Ireland, and to enable them to escape those rates which the landowners in Scotland and England paid without grudging. He therefore altogether objected to the plan of making the Chancellor of the Exchequer provide the money, and would recommend instead, that the plan of a school rate should be adopted.
  SIR JOHN LESLIEsaid, that it was his intention to support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare. He had for seven Sessions sat in that House and patiently listened to the merits of this question, and he thought that the claims of the National School Teachers to better salaries were just, and that no one would be found to disagree to that proposition. As to the amount to which the salaries should be raised, that was another question. It appeared to him that the original cause of the failure of the system in existence was that from the first—namely, in 1831—the salaries of the teachers were placed too low, and the Government had ever since failed to correct that mistake; instead of acknowledging the original error, they had endeavoured, by every ingenuity possible, to postpone doing anything. Two things were absolutely necessary for the success of the system of National Education in Ireland. One was the just and impartial administration of the National Education Board, the other was the high qualification of the teachers. With regard to the first, he regretted to say, that judging from local experience, and
  1534
  especially in the county he had the honour to represent, great dissatisfaction existed at the present time; but that, perhaps, was not the time to advert to that subject. However, there was but one opinion with respect to the excellence of the teachers, and he felt convinced that the moderation of the scale of salaries put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kildare must commend itself to every reasonable mind. Knowing the practical mind and great judgment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he looked forward with some hope to hear him announce to-night that the status of the National Teachers should be immediately improved.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, there could be no doubt that the teachers were very much underpaid, for this had always been allowed by the Government. Now, there were only two ways by which an increase of the payments to them could be effected. One was by levying a rate of some kind on Ireland, and the other was an augmentation of funds from the Exchequer. The latter plan had been denounced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), who said that Scotland would have to pay a very large part of any increased sum which the Irishmen got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, if the Irishmen succeeded in getting that sum, they would be only following the example of the Scotch Members. Since the present Government came into Office, the Education Estimates in Scotland had increased by no less than £340,000; while, if the object of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) was attained, only £120,000 would be granted. He admitted that Ireland obtained an advantage of £100,000, but Scotland had received £340,000. It could not be said that the Irish Members came begging to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if they only asked to be put on a footing of equality with Scotland in this respect. It might, perhaps, be said, that before the additional sum of £340,000 was granted to Scotland, that country received less money for education than Ireland. This fact he granted, but at present Scotland was receiving a much larger sum than Ireland in proportion to her population. Scotland was receiving 3s. 1¼d. per head of the population, while Ireland received only 2s. 4d. The difference of 7¼d. per head

  1535
  amounted to more than the £120,000 that was required in order to place the National School Teachers on a proper footing and to enable them to live in a respectable manner. He took the case of Scotland rather than England, for the latter had a much more dense population—twice as dense as Ireland—and, therefore, it was much easier to educate a given number of children than in Ireland. It was impossible to propose that a rate should be levied, unless Irishmen were to decide what kind of education should be given. If the Irish people were to be allowed to settle their own system of education, he would support the plan of a rate, if, as was practically the case in Scotland, they could choose their own education. If the Government would allow the details of the education to be settled by the votes of the Irish Members, he would also willingly consent to the proposal, and would also agree to a conscience clause, so that the opinions of the minority should be respected. But he knew there was not the slightest chance of the Government agreeing to such a proposal. There was another plan which might be followed—that of making the rate compulsory in Unions; but the same objection would apply there, unless the determination of the system of education was left to the elected Guardians only. It was unfair to levy a local tax for the education in Ireland, unless the local people were to have a voice in deciding how the tax was to be applied. In the present condition of Ireland, it was hardly possible to expect better results than those now presented. They would never get the same voluntary contributions in Ireland as were obtained in England and Scotland, yet the voluntary contributions in Ireland were much larger than was generally supposed, because many of them were never shown in Returns. For instance, the convent schools were maintained by voluntary contributions, and these never appeared in any Returns that were made. In his place of residence £10,000 were raised in voluntary contributions by religious orders for the education of the people. For the Government to levy a local rate was totally unfair, unless they allowed the people to have some control over its disposal. They ought, certainly, to give them the privilege, or put them on the same footing as Scotland. The Irish
  1536
  Members, in this matter, did not appear as beggars; for the people of Ireland contributed their fair share of taxes, and they simply asked that they should receive their fair share towards the National Education of their country from Government.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it was only fair that he should at once admit the very reasonable, and, he should add, the very conciliatory, manner in which the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had introduced this question. The hon. and learned Member had embodied his views in a Resolution, and had asked the House to adopt that Resolution. He (Mr. J. Lowther) confessed that, looking at the terms of the Resolution, it was not one which he was disposed to call in question; for he thought that a slight verbal alteration would obviate any differences that might arise between them. Before he went into details, he desired to point out one or two matters which he considered the hon. and learned Member had failed quite accurately to place before the House. He referred, principally, to his description of the treatment of this subject by Her Majesty's Government hitherto. It was quite true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had observed, that promises were made by the Government in 1874 and subsequent years upon this subject; but he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had rather overstrained his case, when he said that practically nothing had been done. The fact to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had referred—namely, that the contributions from Parliamentary Grants were now upwards of £100,000 more than they were at the time those promises of the Government were made— ["No, no!"]—was in itself sufficient to show that the Government were quite prepared to consider the claims put forward by Ireland on this question. He believed he was strictly correct in saying that the Parliamentary contributions towards the promotion of National Education in Ireland were larger by £100,000 than they were in 1874. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the Bill which had been introduced by his (Mr. J. Lowther's) right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1875. That was a measure in which the Government

  1537
  attempted to meet the grievances of the National School Teachers. It proposed to enable Unions to contribute towards the support of the teachers; and, in the first year of its operation, 65 Unions, out of a total of 73, voluntarily contributed towards the object in view. Therefore, at the outset, the Government were justified in hoping that considerable progress had been made towards redressing the grievances which were then urged. He also thought that they were justified in hoping that practical results would accrue; but he must admit that these hopes had been disappointed, for the number of Unions contributing, instead of increasing, as they expected, had decidedly decreased, and the Act of 1875, therefore, had failed. Again, he must refer to the Act of the following year, which was an Act which placed non-contributory Unions upon the same footing as contributory Unions. That Act had been a decided success. [Mr. MELDON: It is not an Act, but a Regulation.] It was a Regulation which, unlike the Act of the previous year, which it supplemented, had led to very satisfactory results; because, while the sum contributed by Parliament had been considerable, the sum obtained from private sources had increased—a matter which was very commendable, and one which ought to be encouraged. He would like to remind the House that local efforts in Ireland in the cause of education did not correspond at all with those made by England and Scotland; and, therefore, any scheme framed by Government with the object of stimulating local effort ought to be viewed with satisfaction. The Government, therefore, had not only been anxious to do whatever they could to carry out their undertakings on the subject, but they had already done a very great deal towards it. The question of residences had been practically settled; while, as to the salaries of the National School Teachers in Ireland, the hon. and learned Gentleman had said that he would be quite content if the proposal he originally made was carried out—namely, that the first-class teachers should receive a salary of £2 a-week, the second-class £1 10 s., and the third-class £1. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would refer to the figures in his possession, he would see, without going into the source from whence the income was derived, that, taking the
  1538
  average of the salaries received, the teachers were really in receipt of those sums. The question of pensions had also been raised, and as regarded it, he had avoided, so far, from referring to any of the sources from whence any augmentation of the incomes, or from whence pensions could be derived. He would admit that there was a great deal to be said in favour of a settlement of this question in the direction indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. His Predecessor, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, had promised that the subject should be taken into the consideration of the Government, and it had accordingly been considered. He (Mr. J. Lowther) had only been a short time connected with the Department in charge of Irish affairs, and he could only say that he had been endeavouring to arrive at a settlement of the question. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that already the subject had engaged the attention of the Government, and he trusted that no very considerable time would now elapse before some satisfactory conclusion would be arrived at. It was in the hands of the Treasury, and there was no chance of its being indefinitely postponed. It had been found necessary to submit the figures bearing upon it to an actuary, whose Report, he trusted, would be in the hands of the Government before long. As he had said, he desired to refrain from speaking of the sources whence provision would be made for carrying out the object he had referred to, and other hon. Gentlemen had studiously done likewise. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway was the only exception, and he had boldly advocated the old familiar remedy of an addition to the Parliamentary Grant. That was a remedy which he (Mr. J. Lowther) thought the House would say Her Majesty's Government were not justified in holding out hopes of their intention to support. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had pointed out objections to certain sources; but he at once joined issue with the proposal of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), that compulsory rates should be levied in Ireland for these purposes, and not without reason; because local rates involved the essential element of local control. Various suggestions had been made to him, and he might mention, amongst others, one for the appropriation

  1539
  of a certain portion of the surplus arising from the Irish Church property. That, however, was a question for the consideration of the Government, and he should not like to commit himself upon the point further than to say it was being so considered. He had shown that the Government were fully prepared to carry out all the promises they had hitherto made on this subject, and he said that he hoped that before very long time had elapsed something definite would be arrived at. He thought that if the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced the Question would consent to a verbal Amendment which he would now suggest, the House might be spared a division on the question. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to leave out in his Motion the words—"And the discontent which prevails amongst that important body of public servants"—for he (Mr. J. Lowther) could not assent by any means to the National School Teachers of Ireland being described as public servants, according to the general acceptation of the term, nor to that part which said that discontent prevailed amongst them, which he looked upon as an inaccurate assertion—the Government would give his Resolution their support, and he would promise that the attention of the Government should be engaged upon the subject.
  MR. MELDONsaid, he had no objection to omit the words to which the right hon. Gentleman objected. He should, therefore, amend his Resolution in accordance with the suggestion of the Chief Secretary.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out the words "and the discontent which prevails amongst that important body of public servants call," in order to insert the word "calls,"—(Mr. James Lowther,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Word "calls" inserted.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Resolved, That "The National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1875," and the other means adopted by the Government, having failed to satisfy the just demands of the Irish National School Teachers, this House is of opinion that the present position of the Irish National
  1540
  School Teachers calls for the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to a satisfactory adjustment of their claims.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS— LICENSING LAW.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. PEASE MR. PEASE rose to call the attention of the House to the manner in which Licences for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors are now issued, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient to issue in England and Wales, between the present time and the next Session of Parliament, any new licences for the sale of wine, beer, or spirits, 'to be consumed off the premises,' without the sanction, in the case of each new licence, of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department."
  The hon. Member said, he was aware that the question had been a good deal before the House during the last few years, and he desired as briefly as possible to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Home Secretary) to one particular point in connection with it. He would first say, however, that the system under which the principal licences were granted was most confused; indeed, any system more confused, it would be well nigh impossible to imagine. There were licences for selling strong beer of not less than 4½ gallons, retailers' licences to sell beer not to be consumed on the premises, licences to sell spirits not less than two gallons, licences to sell foreign wines not licensed to retail beer or spirits; retailers of wine rated under £50 to be consumed off the premises, and many others. Any Government that turned its attention to the subject of licensing should endeavour to effect a much more simple method of dealing with what were called "on" and "off" licences than at present existed. His present object, however, was to address himself more particularly to the granting of off-licences, which enabled the sale of liquors to be consumed off the premises. It was proposed to deal with these licences in the Bill which the present Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) introduced in 1868 or 1869; but the clauses bearing on the subject were lost in Committee. Since that time these licences had increased in an enormous ratio; in fact, unless their issue was stopped, the country would be flooded with them,

  1541
  The Returns before the House showed that, whilst the magistrates had hardly licensed any fresh houses, the licences granted by the Excise had increased in an enormous ratio. He would give the figures showing the increase in the granting of licences during the past seven years. The licences for selling strong beer in quantities of not less than 4½ gallons had increased from 6,510 in 1870 to 7,595 in 1877. The licences to retailers in beer not to be consumed on the premises had actually increased between the years 1870 and 1877 by upwards of 100 per cent—from 3,078 to 6,690—and the dealers in beer and foreign wine not licensed to sell by retail had increased by about 25 per cent. The Home Secretary had often asked whether drunkenness increased in this country? A Return, moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the late Member for Oxford-shire (Mr. Henley) of the convictions between 1871 and 1876, showed, that contemporaneously with the increase of off-licences, drunkenness had greatly increased throughout the country. The figures were as follows:—In Bradford 43 per cent, in Gateshead 159 per cent, in Halifax 122 per cent, and in Nottingham 363 per cent. On considering the Re-ports of the Inspectors of the Northern, Southern, and Midland divisions, one was driven to the conclusion that drunkenness had increased in the same proportion as the increase of licensed houses. Licences were granted by the Excise with scarcely any control on the part of the magistrates. The local authorities also stated that there had been an enormous increase in drunkenness amongst women. For instance, in Manchester, between the years 1858 and 1876, while the percentage of convictions of men for drunkenness decreased from 83 to 71, the percentage of convictions of women had increased from 16 to 28.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. PEASE, in resuming, said, the remedy he suggested for the evil he had described was what Lord Aberdare had proposed when he was unable to pass his licensing measure—namely, to suspend the power of magistrates to grant licences except with the consent of the Home Office. If, he would say in conclusion,
  1542
  Her Majesty's Government were ready to agree to the course proposed in his Resolution, he would best consult the convenience of the House by moving it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient to issue in England and Wales, between the present time and the next Session of Parliament, any new licences for the sale of wine, beer, or spirits 'to be consumed off the premises,' without the sanction, in the case of each new licence, of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department."—(Mr. Pease.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he did not wish in the least to dispute the assumption of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pease), that drunkenness had increased in this country; though, as he had always stated, he looked with suspicion on figures, which it was easy to manufacture with reference to any towns or villages. With regard to the general question of granting off-licences, he was aware that a considerable number of complaints had come from magistrates throughout the country for some years past that their powers were limited under the Act of 1869, and that they were practically compelled to grant those licences almost broadcast. Under that Act, the magistrates were compelled to grant licences when certain conditions were complied with, and there was no question that a large increase in the number of licences granted had taken place. He had no reason to differ in the main from the opinions which he expressed in 1869. He held, then, that if the magistrates were to be entrusted with a discretion as to the granting of licences for the consumption of drink on the premises, it was no unreasonable thing to say that they were capable of dealing with all classes of licences; but it was not the pleasure of Parliament to adopt that view of the measure, and the present system was adopted giving the discretion to magistrates only in cases where the drink was to be consumed on the premises. He was prepared at this moment to admit that a great deal could be said for dealing with off-licences regarding the sale of spirits and beer in open vessels; but, since 1869, his experience had convinced him that with regard to the sale of beer in sealed vessels, and of wine in bottles, the difficulties he foresaw then as to the general

  1543
  sale under "off" licences did not apply. He believed the wine licence was not abused to the extent of the spirit licence, and did not to any extent affect drunkenness. Two years ago, a Select Committee of the House of Lords was appointed to investigate the whole of the question. An immense mass of evidence had been submitted to that Committee; but it had not yet presented its Report, and it would, therefore, be unwise until it did to attempt to legislate on that subject. Another consideration which, in his mind, militated against the Motion, and which could not be overlooked, was, that at this period of the Session, they could hardly hope to deal with much advantage with any further measures than those already before the House. In those circumstances, and not from any hostility to the general object which the hon. Member opposite had in view, but because the present was not an opportune moment for dealing with the subject, he begged to move the Previous Question.
  Previous Question moved, "That that Question be now put."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  MR. PEASE, in reply, said, he had been in hopes that the hon. Gentleman would have so far supported him as to bring in a Suspensory Bill with respect to licences for the sale of beer and spirits in open vessels. He had done his best in calling attention to the subject. He had no wish to take any further responsibility in the matter, and he left it on the shoulders of the Government, feeling perfectly assured that either the present Government or their Successors would have to deal with this very important question.
  Previous Question put, and negatived.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  On Motion of Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under "The Elementary Education Act, 1870," to enable the School Board for Mickleover, in the county of Derby, to put in force "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," &c., ordered to be brought in by Lord GEORGE HAMILTON and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875," relating to the boroughs of Devonport and Newcastle upon Tyne, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (DROITWICH, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870," and "The Public Health Act, 1875," relating to the borough of Droitwich, the Local Government district of Ilkeston, the borough of Saffron Walden, and the Local Government district of Tow Law, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BELPER UNION, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the rural sanitary district of the Belper Union, the borough of Burnley, the rural sanitary district of the Chesterfield Union (two), the Local Government district of Ilkeston, the Improvement Act district of Lytham, the Port of Milford, the Local Government district of Rhymney, the rural sanitary district of the Rugby Union, the Local Government district of Ryton, the rural sanitary district of the Saint Asaph Union, the Port of Sunderland, the borough of Swansea, and the Local Government district of Tunbridge Wells, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BOLDRE, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1867," relating to the parishes of Boldre and Birmingham, and to the townships of Old Accrington and New Accrington, and certain Orders of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876," relating to the parishes of Bolnhurst, Keysoe, Little Staughton, Minster, Pertenhall, and Saint Lawrence, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ABERGAVENNY UNION, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the rural sanitary district

  1545
  of the Abergavenny Union, the Improvement Act district of Bradford (Wilts), the Local Government district of Brigg, the boroughs of Brighton and Cheltenham, the Local Government district of Ebbw Vale, the Improvement Act district of Leek, the boroughs of Liverpool and Preston, the Local Government district of Saint Columb, the borough of Tiverton (two), the Local Government district of Tredegar, and the special drainage district of Warlington, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONGE D'ELIRE BILL— [BILL 110.]
  (Mr. Monk, Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Assheton.)
  CONGE D'ELIRE BILL— [BILL 110.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MONK,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he would not trouble the House at any great length, as he had fully explained the object of the measure last year; when, owing to the want of time, the Bill was talked out on a Wednesday afternoon. But there was one alteration in the present Bill as compared with the one he had introduced on previous occasions. The former Bills were drawn on the model of the Acts of Edward VI. and of Elizabeth, by which all Bishoprics were made donative by Letters Patent of the Crown. Under those Bills, there was an elaborate machinery for the consecration of Bishops under the severe penalties of prœmunire. Now, he had entirely redrafted the Bill, and omitted all the penalties of prœmunire, framing it on the model of the St. Alban's and the Truro Bishoprics Acts, which had been passed under the auspices of the Home Secretary. Therefore, he hoped that the objections which had been taken by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) and others to his Bill had been obviated. He need not point out to the House how great a sham and mockery was the present mode of election—the name of the person to be elected was given in the letter-missive to the dean and chapter, and he was to be elected under the penalty of prœmunire. Such eminent Judges as Lord Chief Justice Denman, Justice Patteson, Chief Justice Erle, and Justice Coleridge, and among Bishops, Bishop Phillpotts and the late Dr. Thirlwall, Bishop of St.
    1546
    Davids, had condemned that method of election, and he hoped that the opinion of the House would be equally distinct. The whole principle of the election of Bishops by dean and chapter had, in fact, been given up by the recent Acts under which the Bishoprics of Truro and St. Alban's had been founded. In those cases, the Queen had been enabled to appoint by Letters Patent without further proceedings. One of the objects of the Bill was to relieve the dean and chapter from the cruel position in which they were placed by law, of being obliged, under the heavy penalties of prœmunire, to assent to an appointment of which they might not approve; and with that object, and with the wish, also, to make the Advisers of the Crown alone responsible for the selection of Bishops, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question, proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Monk.)
    MR. J. G. HUBBARD, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that he concurred with the hon. Member in hoping that the Church of England might not lose her reality; but, in order that it might continue to be real, the Episcopate ought to be real also. In dealing with the question before the House, it was necessary to look back to the origin of the form which the hon. Member desired to abrogate. The House would remember that originally the Clergy and Bishops of the Church of England were in communion with Rome, and, consequently, under the patronage of the Pope; and that Henry VIII., while he desired to emancipate the Church from that connection, did not wish to do away with the Episcopal character of the Anglican ordination; but demanded only that the Bishops should be acceptable to himself—especially as the Bishops were under stringent oaths of allegiance to the Pope. It was natural, then, that he should appeal to the deans and chapters to elect persons whom he could approve. No doubt, the penalties of prœmunire were not light, and had seldom or never been incurred; but that was no reason why they should be abolished, or even why they should be considered undesirable. He based his defence of the existing system on the fact that it maintained

    1547
    the popular principle of election in the Episcopate of the Church of England. Then, again, an appointment might be absolutely at variance with the interests of the Church, so as to provoke a refusal from the elective body. Many persons thought that was the case with the appointment of Dr. Hampden, against which the dean and chapter protested, though they ultimately submitted; but, in other cases, the defect of the nominee might be not merely theological, but a serious canonical disqualification. What if the Crown, in its absolute action, backed by the influence of the Prime Minister of the day, were to present a Roman Catholic Ecclesiastic to a Bishopric? Of course, the dean and chapter would refuse to assent to such a nomination; and, though the exercise of their discretion might be never or very rarely necessary, he objected to the removal of such a safeguard. The greatest evil resulting from the present state of the law was a slight delay in the appointment of no great consequence. The House should bear in mind that the system of electing Bishops through a congé d' élire, qualified by a prœmunire, was devised to counteract the influence of Rome, and was not intended to fetter the free exercise of the functions of the dean and chapter. It was clear, from a work published in 1536, entitled The Institution of a Christian Man, and dedicated by Cranmer to King Henry VIII., that the discretion lay with the dean and chapter, who were enjoined to approve the presentee of the King, or else reject him for his demerits. They exercised their discretion under great responsibilities, and under penalties if they needlessly set themselves against the law, though the law would justify them in resisting an improper appointment. The direct appointment by the Crown to the recently-created Sees of Truro and St. Albans, was inevitable in the lack of a dean or chapter; but the Patent and the Law distinctly contemplated their subsequent provision. The safeguard of a congé d' élire was one that ought to be retained; and, as it acted, no greater inconvenience followed than a slight delay, to be balanced against an important Constitutional principle. That being the case, he hoped that the House would not alter the law, but would read the Bill a second time that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. J. G. Hubbard.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. ASSHETON MR. ASSHETON rose to address the House in support of the Bill, when——
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock.